Skip to main content

Full text of "The secret of the totem"

See other formats 


This  is  a  digital  copy  of  a  book  that  was  preserved  for  generations  on  library  shelves  before  it  was  carefully  scanned  by  Google  as  part  of  a  project 
to  make  the  world's  books  discoverable  online. 

It  has  survived  long  enough  for  the  copyright  to  expire  and  the  book  to  enter  the  public  domain.  A  public  domain  book  is  one  that  was  never  subject 
to  copyright  or  whose  legal  copyright  term  has  expired.  Whether  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  may  vary  country  to  country.  Public  domain  books 
are  our  gateways  to  the  past,  representing  a  wealth  of  history,  culture  and  knowledge  that's  often  difficult  to  discover. 

Marks,  notations  and  other  marginalia  present  in  the  original  volume  will  appear  in  this  file  -  a  reminder  of  this  book's  long  journey  from  the 
publisher  to  a  library  and  finally  to  you. 

Usage  guidelines 

Google  is  proud  to  partner  with  libraries  to  digitize  public  domain  materials  and  make  them  widely  accessible.  Public  domain  books  belong  to  the 
public  and  we  are  merely  their  custodians.  Nevertheless,  this  work  is  expensive,  so  in  order  to  keep  providing  this  resource,  we  have  taken  steps  to 
prevent  abuse  by  commercial  parties,  including  placing  technical  restrictions  on  automated  querying. 

We  also  ask  that  you: 

+  Make  non-commercial  use  of  the  files  We  designed  Google  Book  Search  for  use  by  individuals,  and  we  request  that  you  use  these  files  for 
personal,  non-commercial  purposes. 

+  Refrain  from  automated  querying  Do  not  send  automated  queries  of  any  sort  to  Google's  system:  If  you  are  conducting  research  on  machine 
translation,  optical  character  recognition  or  other  areas  where  access  to  a  large  amount  of  text  is  helpful,  please  contact  us.  We  encourage  the 
use  of  public  domain  materials  for  these  purposes  and  may  be  able  to  help. 

+  Maintain  attribution  The  Google  "watermark"  you  see  on  each  file  is  essential  for  informing  people  about  this  project  and  helping  them  find 
additional  materials  through  Google  Book  Search.  Please  do  not  remove  it. 

+  Keep  it  legal  Whatever  your  use,  remember  that  you  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  what  you  are  doing  is  legal.  Do  not  assume  that  just 
because  we  believe  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  the  United  States,  that  the  work  is  also  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  other 
countries.  Whether  a  book  is  still  in  copyright  varies  from  country  to  country,  and  we  can't  offer  guidance  on  whether  any  specific  use  of 
any  specific  book  is  allowed.  Please  do  not  assume  that  a  book's  appearance  in  Google  Book  Search  means  it  can  be  used  in  any  manner 
anywhere  in  the  world.  Copyright  infringement  liability  can  be  quite  severe. 

About  Google  Book  Search 

Google's  mission  is  to  organize  the  world's  information  and  to  make  it  universally  accessible  and  useful.  Google  Book  Search  helps  readers 
discover  the  world's  books  while  helping  authors  and  publishers  reach  new  audiences.  You  can  search  through  the  full  text  of  this  book  on  the  web 


at|http  :  //books  .  google  .  com/ 


1 

THE 

NEW  YORK  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 

PRESENTED  BY 

MRS.   HENRY   DRAPER 

\ 


HAZC 


1 


I 


BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR 


SOCIAL  ORIGINS.     By  Andrew  Lang,  M.A.,  LL.D. ;  and 

PRIBCAL  LAW.    By  J.  J.  Atkiimon.    8vo,  xqs.  6dL  net 
MAGIC  AND  RELIGION.    8vo,  los.  6d.  net 
THE  MAKING  OF  RELIGION.    Crown  8vo^  5s.  net 

MODERN  MYTHOLOGY:  A  Reply  to  Professor  Bfaz  MtUler. 
8vo,  9s. 

MYTH,  RITUAL,  AND  RELIGION.    2  vols.    Crown  8to,  7s. 

CUSTOM  AND  MYTH :  Studies  of  Early  Usage  and  Belie£ 
Crowii  81^  3s>  6d. 

THE  MYSTERY  OF  MARY  STUART.  Crown  8vo,  68. 6d.  net. 

THE  VALETS  TRAGEDY,  AND  OTHER  STUDIES  IN 
SECRET  HISTORY.    8vo.  las.  6d.  net. 

PRINCE  CHARLES   EDWARD  STUART,   THE   YOUNG 
CHEVALIER.    Oown  8vo,  7s.  6d.  net. 

JOHN  KNOX  AND  THE  REFORMATION.    8to,  iob.  6d.  net 

HOMER  AND  THE  EPIC.    Crown  8vo,  9s.  net 

COCK  LANE  AND  COMMONSENSE.    Crown  8to,  3s.  6d. 

THE  BOOK  OF  DREAMS  AND  GHOSTS.    Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 

ADVENTURES  AMONG  BOOKS.    Crown  8vo,  6s.  6d.  net. 

BALLADS  OF  BOOKS.  Edited  by  Andrew  Lang.  Fcap.8vo,6s. 

NEW  COLLECTED  RHYMES.    Crown  8va 

LETTERS  TO  DEAD  AUTHORS.    Fcap.  8to,  as.  6d.  net 

BOOKS  AND  BOOKMEN.    Fcap.  8vo,  2s.  6d.  net. 

OLD  FRIENDS.    Fcap.  8vo,  2s.  6d.  net 

LETTERS  ON  LITERATURE.    Fcap.  8vo.  2s.  6d.  net 

ESSAYS  IN  LITTLE.    Crown  8vo,  2s.  6d. 

ANGLING  SKETCHES.    Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 


FICTION 

A  MONK  OF  FIFE :  A  Romance  of  the  Days  of  Joan  of  Arc. 

Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d. 
THE  DISENTANGLERS.     Crown  8vo,  68. 

THE   WORLD'S    DESIRE.     By  H.  Rider  Haggard   and 

Andrew  Lang.    Crown  8vo,  3a.  6d. 
PARSON  KELLY.     By  A.  E.  W.  Mason  and  Andrew  Lang. 

Onwn  8vo,  3s.  6d. 

LONGMANS.   GREEN,   AND    CO. 

LONDON,  NEW  YORK,  AND  BOMBAY 


THE    SECRET    OF    THE    TOTEM 


\ 


THE  SECRET  OF  THE 
TOTEM 


BY 

ANDREW    LANG 


LONGMANS,    GREEN,    AND    CO. 

39  PATERNOSTER   ROW,   LONDON 

NEW  YORK  AND  BOMBAY 

1905 

C.  F. 

All  rightt  ] 


ItHENEV/  yoR'< 
I  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 

A8T0R,  LENOX   AND 

TiLftEN.  Foundations, 
1906 


CONTENTS 


Introduction 

CHAP. 

I.  Origin  of  Totbmism 


II.  Method  of  Inquiry 
III.  Theory  of  Primal  Promiscuity 
rv.  The  Arunta  Anomaly 
V.  The  Theories  of  Dr.  Durkheim 
VI.  The  Author's  Theory 
VII.  Rise  of  Phratries  and  Totem  Kins 
VIII.  A  New  Point  Explained    . 
IX.  ToTEMic  Redistribution 
X.  Matrimonial  Classes  . 
XI.  Mr.  Frazer's  Theory  of  Totemism 
Appendix  :  American  Theories  . 


PACK 

vii 


21 

35 

59 

91 

III 

142 

154 
171 
178 
188 

303 


INTRODUCTION 

This  book  is  the  natural  sequel  of  Social  Origins  and 
PrinuU  LaWf  published  three  years  ago.  In  Primal  LaWy 
Mr.  J.  J.  Atkinson  sought  for  the  origin  of  marriage 
prohibitions  in  the  social  conditions  of  early  man,  as 
conceived  of  by  Mr.  Darwin.  Man,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  great  naturalist,  was  a  jealous  animal ;  the  sire,  in 
each  group,  kept  all  his  female  mates  to  himself,  ex- 
pelling his  adolescent  male  offspring.  From  this  earliest 
and  very  drastic  restriction,  Mr.  Atkinson,  using  the 
evidence  of  "avoidances"  between  kinsfolk  in  savage 
society,  deduced  the  various  prohibitions  on  sexual 
unions.  His  ingenious  theory  has  been  received  with 
some  favour,  where  it  has  been  understood. 

Mr.  Atkinson  said  little  about  totemism,  and,  in  Social 
Origins^  I  oflFered  a  theory  of  the  Origin  of  Totemism ; 
an  elaboration  of  the  oldest  of  all  scientific  theories, 
that  of  Garcilasso  de  la  Vega,  an  Inca  on  the  maternal 
side,  the  author  of  the  History  of  the  Incas.  Totems, 
he  conceived,  arose  in  the  early  efforts  of  human  groups 
to  differentiate  each  from  the  others.  Mr.  Max  Muller 
and  Dr.  Pikler  set  forth  the  same  notion,  independently. 
The  "  clans,"  or,  as  I  say, ''  groups,"  needed  differentia- 
tion by  names,  such  as  are  still  used  as  personal  names 
by  savages,  and  by  names  easily  expressed  in  pictographs, 
and  easily  signalled  in  gesture  language.     The  origin 


viii  INTRODUCTION 

of  the  group  names,  or  sobriquets,  once  forgotten,  the 
names,  as  usual,  suggested  a  relation  between  the  various 
name-giving  objects  and  the  groups  which  bore  them. 
That  relation  was  explained  by  the  various  myths  which 
make  the  name-giving  animals,  plants,  and  other  objects, 
mystic  kinsmen,  patrons,  or  ancestors  of  the  group.9 
named  after  them.  From  reflection  on  this  mystic 
rapport  between  the  objects  and  the  human  groups  of 
the  same  names,  arose  the  various  superstitions  and 
tabus,  including  that  which  prohibits  unions  between 
men  and  women  of  the  same  animal  group-name, 
whether  by  locality  or  maternal  descent. 

Critics  objected  that  such  a ''  trivial  accident "  as  a 
name  could  not  be  the  germ,  or  one  of  the  germs  of  a 
great  social  system.  But ''  the  name  goes  before  every- 
thing," as  the  Scots  used  to  say ;  and  in  this  book  I  have 
set  forth  the  great  importance  of  names  in  early  society, 
a  fact  universally  acknowledged  by  anthropologists. 

It  was  also  objected  that  names  given  from  without 
would  never  be  accepted  and  gloried  in,  so  I  now  prove 
that  such  names  have  often  been  accepted  and  gloried 
in,  even  when  they  are  derisive ;  which,  among  savages, 
names  derived  from  plants  and  animals  are  not ;  they 
are  rather  honourable  appellations. 

So  far,  I  have  only  fortified  my  position.  But  some 
acute  criticisms  offered  in  Man  by  Mr.  N.  W.  Thomas 
enabled  me  to  detect  a  weak  point  in  my  system,  as 
given  in  Social  Origins^  and  so  led  on  to  what  I  ven- 
ture to  think  not  unimportant  discoveries  regarding  the 
Australian  social  organisations.  To  Mr.  Thomas's  re- 
searches, which  I  trust  he  will  publish  in  full,  I  am  much 
indebted,  and  he  kindly  read  part  of  this  book  in  type- 
written MS. 


INTRODUCTION  ix 

I  also  owe  much  to  Mrs.  Langloh  Parker,  who  gene- 
rously permitted  me  to  read,  in  her  MS.,  her  valuable 
account  of  the  Euahlayi  tribe  of  New  South  Wales, 
which  is  to  be  published  by  Messrs.  Archibald  Con- 
stable. No  student  has  been  so  intimately  acquainted 
as  this  lady  with  the  women  of  an  Australian  tribe; 
while  the  men,  in  a  place  where  they  could  be  certain 
that  they  were  free  from  tribal  espionnage^  were  singu- 
larly communicative.  Within  its  limits,  Mrs.  Langloh 
Parker's  book,  I  think,  may  be  reckoned  almost  as 
valuable  as  those  of  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen. 

By  the  irony  of  fortune,  I  had  no  sooner  seen  my 
book  in  print,  than  Mr.  J.  G.  Frazer's  chapter  on 
"The  Beginnings  of  Religion  and  Totemism  among 
the  Australian  Aborigines"  {Fortnightly  Review^  Sep- 
tember 1905)  came  into  my  hands.  I  then  discovered 
that,  just  when  I  thought  myself  to  have  disentangled 
the  ravelled  thread  of  totemism,  Mr.  Frazer  also 
thought,  using  another  metaphor,  that  his  own  ''  plum- 
mets had  found  bottom " — a  very  different  bottom. 
I  then  wrote  Chapter  XI.,  stating  my  objections  to 
his  theories.  Many  of  these,  mainly  objections  to  the 
hypothesis  of  the  relative  primitiveness  of  the  Arunta 
"nation,"  had  often  been  urged  before  by  others.  I 
was  unaware  that  they  had  been  answered,  but  they 
have  obviously  been  deemed  inadequate.  Meanwhile 
the  question  as  between  two  entirely  different  solution^ 
of  the  old  mystery  remains  open. 

Since  critics  of  my  Social  Origins  often  missed  my 
meaning,  I  am  forced  to  suppose  that  I  may  in  like 
manner  have  misconstrued  some  of  the  opinions  of 
others,  which,  as  I  understand  them,  I  am  obliged  to 
contest     I  have  done  my  best  to  understand,  and  shall 


X  INTRODUCTION 

deeply  regret  any  failures  of  interpretation  on  my 
own  part. 

Necessarily  I  was  unaware  that  in  Mr.  Frazer's 
opinion,  as  set  forth  in  his  essay  of  September  1905, 
"  the  common  assumption  that  inheritance  of  the  totem 
through  the  mother  always  preceded  inheritance  of  it 
through  the  father  need  not  hold  good,"  I  have 
throughout  argued  on  that  assumption,  which  I  under- 
stood to  be  held  by  Mr.  Frazer,  as  well  as  by  Mr. 
Taylor,  Mr.  Howitt,  and  most  authorities.  If  it  be 
correct,  as  I  still  think  it  is,  it  cannot  but  be  fatal  to 
the  Arunta  claim  to  primitiveness.  But  Arunta  society 
is,  in  many  points,  so  obviously  highly  organised,  and 
so  confessedly  advanced,  that  I  am  quite  unable  to 
accept  this  tribe  as  an  example  of  the  most  archaic 
state  of  affairs  extant.  If  I  am  wrong,  much  of  my 
argument  is  shaken,  and  of  this  it  is  necessary  to  warn 
the  reader.  But  a  tribe  really  must  be  highly  advanced 
in  organisation,  if  it  can  afford  to  meet  and  devote 
four  months  to  ceremonials,  as  it  did,  in  a  region  said 
to  be  relatively  deficient  in  natural  supplies. 

In  this  book  I  have  been  able  to  use  the  copious 
materials  of  Mr.  Howitt  and  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen 
in  their  two  recent  works.  It  seems  arrogant  to  differ 
from  some  of  the  speculative  opinions  of  these  dis- 
tinguished observers,  but  "  we  must  go  where  the  logos 
leads  us." 

I  end  by  thanking  Mr.  H.  J.  Ford  for  his  design  of 
Eagle  Hawk  and  Grow,  heading  the  totems  in  their 
phratries,  and  betrothing  two  interesting  young  human 
members  of  these  divisions. 


THE 

SECRET    OF   THE    TOTEM 

CHAPTER  I 

ORIGIN  OF   TOTEMISM 

The  making  of  the  local  tribe  of  savagery— Earliest  known  stage  of  locietj 
—Result  of  complex  processes— Elaborate  tribal  mles— Laws  altered 
deliberately:  sometimes  borrowed  —  Kxisting  legislative  methods  of 
savages  not  primitive — ^The  tribe  a  gradual  conquest  of  culture— The 
tribe  a  combination  of  small  pre-tribal  kinships — History  of  progress 
towards  the  tribe  traceable  in  surviving  institutions — ^From  passion  to 
Law  —  Rudeness  of  native  culture  in  Australia  —  Varieties  of  social 
organisation  there — i.  Tribes  with  two  phratries,  totems,  female  descent 
—Tribes  of  this  organisation  differ  as  to  ceremonies  and  belief*— ^me 
beliefe  tend  to  polytheism :  others  towards  monotheism— Some  tribes  of 
pristine  organisation  have  totemic  magic  and  ptrruuru:  others  have  not 
—The  more  northern  tribes  of  pristine  orgvusation  share  the  ceremonies 
and  beliefs  of  central  tribes :  not  so  the  south-eastern  tribes — Second 
form  {a)  of  social  organisation  has  male  descent — Second  form  (d)  has 
female  descent  /Atf  "matrimonial  classes  "—Account  of  these — Eight* 
dass  system — The  Arunta  nation — ^Their  peculiar  form  of  belief  in 
reincamation — Ckimnga  nanja — Recapitulation — The  Euahlayi  tribe. 

The  question  of  the  origin  of  totemism  has  more  than 
the  merely  curious  or  antiquarian  interest  of  an  historic 
or  prehistoric  mystery.  In  the  course  of  the  inquiry  we 
may  be  able  to  discern  and  discriminate  the  relative  con- 
tributions of  unreflecting  passion,  on  one  hand,  and  of 
deliberate  reason,  on  the  other,  to  the  structure  of  the 
earliest  extant  form  of  human  society.  That  form  is 
the  savage  local  tribe,  as  known  to  us  in  America  and 
in  Australia. 

A 


2  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Men  live  in  united  local  communities^  relatively 
large,  and  carefully  regimented,  before  they  have  learned 
to  domesticate  animals,  or  to  obey  chiefs,  or  to  practise 
the  rudest  form  of  agriculture,  or  to  fashion  clay  into 
pottery,  or  to  build  permanent  hovels.  Customary  law 
is  older  than  any  of  these  things,  and  the  most  ancient 
law  which  we  can  observe  unites  a  tribe  by  that  system 
of  marriages  which  expresses  itself  in  totemism. 

It  is  plain  that  the  processes  of  evolution  which  have 
resulted  in  the  most  backward  societies  known  to  us, 
must  have  been  very  complex.  If  we  reflect  that  the 
society  of  the  Australian  aborigines  presents  the  institu- 
tion of  local  tribes,  each  living  peacefully,  except  for 
occasional  internal  squabbles,  in  a  large  definite  tract  of 
country;  cultivating,  on  the  whole,  friendly  relations  with 
similar  and  similarly  organised  tribes ;  while  obeying  a 
most  elaborate  system  of  rules,  it  is  obvious  that  these 
social  conditions  must  be  very  remote  from  the  abso- 
lutely primitive.^  The  rules  of  these  tribes  regulate  every 
detail  of  private  life  with  a  minuteness  and  a  rigour  that 
remind  us  of  what  the  Scottish  Cavalier  (1652)  protested 
against  as  ''  the  bloody  and  barbarous  inconveniences  of 
Presbyterial  Government."  Yet  the  tribes  have  neither 
presbyters,  nor  priests,  nor  kings.  Their  body  of 
customary  law,  so  copious  and  complex  that,  to  the 
European,  it  seems  as  puzzling  as  algebra  is  to  the 
savage,  has  been  evolved,  after  a  certain  early  point,  by 
the  slow  secular  action  of  '^  collective  wisdom."  We 
shall  find  that  on  this  point,  early  deliberate  modification 
of  law,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

The  recent  personal  researches  of  Mr.  Howitt  and 
Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  make  it  certain  that  tribal 

*  Howitt,  Naiivi  Tribes  ofSmih'Bast  Australia^  p.  41.     1904. 


TRIBAL  LEGISLATION  3 

affairs,  now,  among  many  tribes  at  least,  are  discussed 
with  the  utmost  deliberation,  and  that  modifications  of 
institutions  may  be  canvassed,  adopted,  or  rejected,  on 
the  initiative  of  seniors,  local  **  Headmen/'  and  medicine 
men.^  It  is  also  certain  that  tribe  borrows  from  tribe, 
in  the  matter  of  songs,  dances,  and  institutions,  while 
members  of  one  tribe  are  permitted  to  be  present  at  the 
sacred  ceremonials  of  others,  especially  when  these  tribes 
are  on  intermarrying  terms.'  In  such  cases,  the  cere- 
monials of  one  tribe  may  affect  those  of  another,  the 
Arunta  may  influence  the  Urabunna,  who  borrow  their 
sacred  objects  or  churinga  for  use  in  their  own  rites.  We 
even  hear  of  cases  in  which  native  religious  ideas  have 
been  propagated  by  missionaries  sent  from  tribe  to 
tribe.* 

Thus,  conservative  as  is  the  savage  by  nature,  he  is 
distinctly  capable  of  deliberate  modification  of  his  rites, 
ceremonies,  and  customary  laws,  and  of  interchanging 
ideas  on  these  subjects  with  neighbouring  tribes. 

All  this  is  true,  to-day,  and  doubtless  has  long  been 
true. 

But  at  this  point  we  must  guard  against  what  we  con- 
sider a  prevalent  fallacy.  The  legislative  action  of  the 
natives,  the  initiative  of  local  Headmen,  and  Heads  of 
Totems  and  of  '' Classes"  (social  divisions),  and  of 
medicine  men  inspired  by  ''some  supernatural  bdng, 
such  as  Kutchi  of  the  Dieri,  Bunjil  of  the  Wurunjerri,  or 
Daramulun  of  the  Coast  Murring,"^  is  only  rendered 
possible  by  the  existence,  to-day,  of  social  conditions 

>  Cf.  for  example  Spencer  and  Gillen,  Northern  Tribis  of  Central  AtutraJia^ 
p.  26.    Howitt,  NoHvo  Tribes  of  South^East  Australia^  pp.  88, 89. 
'  Howitt,  ui  supra^  pp.  511,  512. 

*  Hale,  U.S,  Exploring  Exptdttion^  p.  410.     1846. 

*  Hcywitt,  Ml  supra^  p.  89. 


4  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

which  cannot  be  primitive.  To-day  the  Tribe,  with  its 
innumerable  rules,  and  its  common  faith  in  Kutchi  or 
Daramulun,  with  its  recognised  local  or  social  Headmen, 
with  its  regulations  for  dealing  with  other  tribes,  and 
with  its  heralds  or  messengers,  is  an  institution  ''in 
being/'  But,  necessarily,  this  was  not  always  so ;  the  Tribe 
itself  is  a  great  ''conquest  of  culture,"  and  that  conquest 
must  have  been  made  very  slowly. 

The  prevalent  fallacy,  then,  is  to  take  unconsciously 
for  granted  that  the  people  was,  from  the  beginning, 
regimented  into  tribes,  or  existed  in  "hordes"  already 
as  capable  as  actual  tribes  of  deliberative  assemblies  and 
legislative  action,  and  that,  in  these  hordes,  a  certain 
law,  "the  universal  basis  of  their  social  system,  was 
brought  about  by  intention,"  as  Mr,  Howitt  believes.^ 

The  law  in  question,  "the  universal  basis  of  their 
social  system,"  was  nothing  less  than  a  rule  compelling 
people  who  had  hitherto  been  promiscuous  in  their 
unions,  to  array  themselves  into  a  pair  of  tribal  divisions, 
in  which  no  member  might  marry  another  member  of 
the  same  division,  but  must  marry* a  member  of  the 
opposite  division.  The  mere  idea  of  such  an  act  of 
legislation,  for  which  no  motive  is  assigned  (and  no 
motive  is  conceivable)  postulates  the  pre-existence  of  a 
community  like  the  Tribe  of  to-day,  with  powers  to 
legislate,  and  to  secure  obedience  for  its  legislative  acts. 
This  postulate  cannot  be  granted,  it  refracts  the  institu- 
tions of  to-day  on  a  past  state  oi  society  which,  in  all 
probability,  could  possess  no  such  institutions.  The 
"chaotic  horde"  of  the  hypothesis  could  not  allot  to 
various  human  groups  the  duty  of  working  magic  (to  take 
an  instance)  for  the  good  of  various  articles  of  the  common 
1  op.  fit.,  p.  89. 


THE  TRIBE  NOT  PRIMITIVE  5 

food  supply,  nor  could  it  establish  a  new  and  drastic  rule, 
suddenly  regulating  sexual  unions  which  had  previously 
been  utterly  unregulated. 

Human  history  does  not  show  us  a  relatively  large 
mass  segregating  itself  into  smaller  communities.  It 
shows  us  small  communities  aggregating  into  larger 
combinations,  the  village  into  the  city,  the  European 
tribes  into  the  kingdom,  the  kingdoms  into  the  nation, 
the  nation  into  the  empire.  The  Tribe  itself,  in  savage 
society,  is  a  combination  of  small  kins,  or  sets  of  persons 
of  various  degrees  of  status ;  these  kins  have  not  been 
legislatively  segregated  out  of  a  pre-existing  horde 
having  powers  of  legislation.  The  idea  of  such  a  legis- 
lative primeval  horde  has  been  unconsciously  borrowed 
from  the  actual  Tribe  of  experience  to-day. 

That  tribe  is  not  primitivci  far  from  it,  but  is  very 
old. 

Tribal  collective  wisdom,  when  once  the  tribe  was 
evolved,  has  probably  been  at  work,  in  unrecorded  ages, 
over  all  the  world,  and  in  most  places  seems,  up  to  a 
certain  point,  to  have  followed  much  the  same  strange 
course.  The  path  does  not  march  straight  to  any  point 
predetermined  by  man,  but  loops,  and  zigzags,  and 
retreats,  and  returns  on  itself,  like  the  course  of  a  river 
beset  by  rocks  and  shoals,  and  parcelled  into  wandering 
streams,  and  lagging  in  morasses.  Yet  the  river  reaches 
the  sea,  and  the  loops  and  links  of  the  path,  frayed  by 
innumerable  generations  of  early  men,  led  at  last  to  the 
haven  of  the  civilised  Family,  and  the  Family  Peace. 

The  history  of  the  progress  must  necessarily  be 
written  in  the  strange  characters  of  savage  institutions, 
and  in  these  odd  and  elaborate  regulations  which  alarm 
the  incurious  mind  under  the  names  of  '^  Phratries/' 


6  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

'•Totems,"  ''Matrimonial  Classes,"  ''Pirraru/'  and 
'' Piraungaru/'  In  these,  as  in  some  Maya  or  Easter 
Island  inscription,  graven  in  bizarre  signs,  lies  the  early 
social  history  of  Man.  We  pore  over  the  characters, 
turning  them  this  way  and  that,  deciphering  a  mark 
here  and  there,  but  unable  to  agree  on  any  coherent 
rendering  of  the  whole,  so  that  some  scholars  deem  the 
problems  insoluble  —  and  most  are  at  odds  among 
themselves. 

Possibly  we  can  at  last  present  a  coherent  translation 
of  the  record  which  lies  half  concealed  and  half  revealed 
in  the  savage  institutions  with  their  uncouth  names,  and 
can  trace  the  course  of  an  evolution  which,  beginning  in 
natural  passions,  emotions,  and  superstitions,  reached  a 
rudimentary  social  law.  That  law,  again,  from  a  period 
far  behind  our  historical  knowledge,  has  been  deliberately 
modified  by  men,  much  as  a  Bill  in  Parliament  is  modified 
by  amendments  and  compromises  into  an  Act.  The 
industry  of  students  who  examine  the  customs  of  the 
remotest  races  has  accumulated  a  body  of  evidence  in 
which  the  various  ways  out  of  early  totemic  society 
towards  the  civilised  conception  of  the  family  may  be 
distinctly  traced. 

Meanwhile  we  are  concerned  rather  with  the  way  into 
totemism  out  of  a  prior  non-totemic  social  condition, 
and  with  the  development  of  the  various  stages  of 
totemic  society  in  Australia.  The  natives  of  that  country, 
when  unspoiled  by  European  influences,  are  almost  on 
one  level  as  to  material  culture.  Some  tribes  have  rather 
better  and  more  permanent  shelters  than  others ;  some 
have  less  inadequate  canoes  than  the  rest ;  some  drape 
themselves  against  cold  weather  in  the  skins  of  beasts, 
while  others  go  bare ;  but  all  are  non-agricultural  hunt- 


AUSTRALIAN   SOCIAL  ORGANISATIONS       7 

ing  wanderers,  without  domesticated  animals,  without 
priests,  and  without  chiefs  on  the  level  of  those  of  the  old 
Highland  clans.  They  are  ignorant  of  pottery,  a  fact 
which  marks  the  very  lowest  culture ;  they  know  not 
the  bow  and  arrow;  their  implements  of  stone  vary 
from  the  polished  ''neolithic"  to  the  rough-hewn 
**  palaeolithic "  type :  a  man  will  use  either  sort  as 
occasion  serves. 

While  everyday  life  and  its  implements  are  thus  rude, 
there  are  great  varieties  of  social  organisation,  of  cere- 
monial institutions,  and  of  what,  among  Europeans, 
would  be  called  speculative  and  religious  ideas,  express- 
ing themselves  in  myths  and  rites. 

Taking  social  organisation  first,  we  begin  with  what 
all  inquirers  (except  one  or  two  who  wrote  before  the 
recent  great  contributions  to  knowledge  appeared)  ac- 
knowledge to  be  the  most  pristine  type  extant  Each 
tribe  of  this  type  is  in  two  intermarrying  divisions 
(which  we  call  ''exogamous  moieties,"  or  "  phratries  "), 
and  each  phratry  bears  a  name  which,  when  it  can  be 
translated,  is,  as  a  rule,  that  of  an  animal.^  We  shall  show 
later  why  the  meaning  of  the  names  has  often  been  lost. 
Take  the  animal  names  of  the  phratries  to  be  Emu  and 
Kangaroo,  no  man  of  the  Emu  phratry  may  marry  a 
woman  of  the  same  phratry,  he  must  marry  out  of  his 
phratry  (''  exogamy  ") ;  nor  may  a  man  of  the  Kangaroo 
phratry  marry  a  woman  of  the  same.  Kangaroo  phratry 
must  marry  into  Emu,  and  Emu  into  Kangaroo.    The 

^  There  are  exceptions,  or  at  least  one  exception  is  known  to  the  rule  of 
animal  names  for  phratries,  a  point  to  which  we  shall  return.  Dr.  Roth 
{N.  W*  Cenirai  Quunsland  Aborigims,  p.  56)  suggests  that  the  phratry  names 
Wutani  and  Pakuta  mean  One  and  Two  (cf  .  p.  26).  For  Wutaru  and  Yungaru, 
however,  interpretations  indicating  names  of  animals  are  given,  diversely,  by 
Mr.  Bridgman  and  Mr.  Chatfield,  Kamilarri  and  Kumai,  pp.  40,  41. 


8  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

phratry  names  in  each  case  are,  in  the  more  primitive 
types  of  the  organisation  (which  alone  we  are  now  con- 
sidering) inherited  from  the  mother.^  A  man  of  the  Emu 
phratry  marries  a  woman  of  the  Kangaroo  phratry,  and 
to  that  phratry  her  children  belong.  Thus  members  of 
either  phratry  must  be  found  in  any  casual  knot  or 
company  of  natives.  Within  each  phratry  there  are, 
again,  kinships  also  known  by  hereditary  names  of 
animals  or  plants.  Thus,  in  Emu  phratry,  there  may 
be  kins  called,  say.  Emu,  Opossum,  Wallaby,  Grub,  and 
others ;  in  the  Kangaroo  phratry  different  names  prevail, 
such  as  Kangaroos,  Lizards,  Dingoes,  Cockatoos,  and 
others.  The  name-giving  animals,  in  this  case,  are 
called  by  us  ''totems,"  and  the  human  kins  which 
bear  their  names  are  called  ''totem  kins/'  No  man  or 
woman  may  marry  a  person  of  his  or  her  own  totem. 
But  this,  in  fact,  as  matters  stand  in  Australia,  puts  no 
fresh  bar  on  marriage,  because  (except  in  four  or  five 
tribes  of  the  Centre)  if  a  man  marries  out  of  his  phratry 
he  must  necessarily  marry  out  of  his  totem  kin,  since 
there  are  no  members  of  his  totem  name  in  the  phratry 
into  which  he  must  marry.  In  America,  in  cases  where 
there  are  no  phratries,  and  universally,  where  totems 
exist  without  phratries,  marriage  between  persons  of 
the  same  totem  is  forbidden. 

The  organisation  of  the  more  primitive  tribes  pre- 
sents only  the  two  exogamous  moieties  or  phratries  in 
each  tribe  and  the  totem  kins  in  the  phratries.     We 

^  That  reckoning  descent  in  the  female  line,  among  tcUmists^  is  earlier  than 
reckoning  in  the  male  line,  Mr.  Howitt,  Mr.  lyior,  Dr.  Durkheim,  and  Messrs. 
Spencer  and  Gillen,  with  Mr.  J.  G.  Frazer,  till  recently,  are  agreed.  Starcke 
says  "  usually  the  female  line  only  appears  in  connection  with  the  Kobong 
(totem)  groups,'*  and  he  holds  the  eccentric  opinion  that  totems  are  relatirely 
late,  and  that  the  tribes  with  none  are  the  more  primitive  I  (The  PrimtHve 
Family,  p.  26,  1896.)    This  writer  calls  Mr.  Howitt  '*a  missionary." 


TYPES  OF  ORGANISATION  9 

have  Crow  phratry  and  Eagle  Hawk  phratry,  and,  within 
Crow  phratry,  Crow  totem  kin,^  with  other  totem  kins; 
within  Eagle  Hawk  phratry,  Eagle  Hawk  totem  kin, 
with  other  totem  kins,  which  are  never  of  the  same 
names  as  those  in  Crow  phratry. 

This  we  call  the  primitive  type,  all  the  other  organi- 
sations are  the  result  of  advances  on  and  modifications 
of  this  organisation.  It  also  occurs  in  America,'  where, 
however,  the  phratry  is  seldom  extant,  though  it  does 
exist  occasionally,  and  is  known  to  have  existed  among 
the  Iroquois  and  to  have  decayed. 

On  examining  Mr.  Howitt's  map*  it  will  be  seen  that 
this  type  of  social  organisation  extends,  or  has  extended, 
from  Mount  Gambier,  by  the  sea,  in  the  extreme  south, 
past  Lake  Eyre,  to  some  distance  beyond  Cooper's  Creek 
or  the  Barcoo  River,  and  even  across  the  Diamantina 
River  in  Queensland.  But  it  is  far  from  being  the  case 
that  all  tribes  with  this  pristine  organisation  possess 
identical  ceremonies  and  ideas.  On  the  other  hand, 
from  the  southern  borders  of  Lake  Eyre,  northwards, 
the  tribes  of  this  social  organisation  have  peculiar  cere- 
monies, unknown  in  the  south  and  east,  but  usual 
further  north  and  west.  They  initiate  young  men 
with  the  rites  of  circumcision  or  subincision  (a  cruel 
process  unknown  outside  of  Australia),  or  with  both. 
In  the  south-east  the  knocking  out  of  a  front  tooth 
takes  the  place  of  these  bloody  ordeals.  The  Lake  Eyre 
tribes,  again,  do  not,  like  those  south  and  east  of  them, 
hold  by,  and  inculcate  at  the  rites,  **  the  belief  as  to  the 
existence    of   a    great    supernatural    anthropomorphic 

^  That  this  it  the  caie  will  be  proved  later ;  the  fiict  has  hitherto  escaped 
obsenratioii. 

*  Fraier,  ToUmism^  p.  61.    Morgan,  Ancmtt  Society^  pp.  90,  94  #f  siq. 

*  NoHve  Tribes  rf  SotUk^East  Australia.    Macmillan,  1904. 


lo     THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Being,  by  whom  the  ceremonies  were  first  instituted, 
and  who  still  communicates  with  mankind  through  the 
medicine  men,  his  servants."^  Their  myths  rather 
repose  on  the  idea  of  beings  previous  to  man,  ''the 
prototypes  of,  but  more  powerful  in  magic  than  the 
native  tribes.  These  beings,  if  they  did  not  create  man, 
at  least  perfected  him  from  some  unformed  and  scarcely 
human  creatures."* 

Thus,  the  more  northern  tribes  of  primitive  tribal 
organisation  (say  the  Dieri  and  their  congeners)  have 
beliefs  which  might  ripen  into  the  Greek  mythology  of 
gods  and  Titans,  while  the  faith  of  the  tribes  of  the  same 
social  organisation,  further  south  by  east,  might  develop 
into  a  rude  form  of  Hebrew  monotheism,  and  the  two 
myths  may  co-exist,  and  often  do.  The  northern  tribes 
about  Lake  Eyre,  and  the  central  and  north  tribes,  work 
co-operative  magic  for  the  behoof  of  their  totem  animals, 
as  part  of  the  common  food  supply,  a  rite  unknown 
to  the  south  and  east.  They  also  practise  a  custom 
{Pirrauru)  of  allotting  men  and  women,  married  or  un- 
married, as  paramours  to  each  other,  after  a  symbolic 
ceremony.  This  arrangement  also  is  unknown  in  the 
south  and  east,  and  even  north  by  west,  though  almost 
everywhere  there  is  sexual  licence  at  certain  ceremonial 
meetings.  It  is  thus  plain  that  the  more  northern  tribes 
of  the  primitive  organisation  described,  differ  from  their 
southern  and  eastern  neighbours  (i«)  in  their  most  im- 
portant initiatory  rites,  (ii.)  in  some  of  their  myths  or 
beliefs,*  (iii.)  in  their  totemic  magic,  and  (iv.)  in  their 

^  Native  TriUs  pf  SmUk-East  Australia^  p.  64a    For  examples,  pp. 

Sa»-53S- 

»  Ibid,  p.  487. 

'  That  is,  on  our  present  information.    It  is  very  unusual  for  orthodox 
adhesion  to  one  set  of  myths  to  prevail. 


DIFFERENCES  IN   BELIEFS  AND  RITES     ii 

allotment  of  permanent  paramours.  In  the  first  three 
points  these  northern  tribes  of  primitive  type  resemble, 
not  the  south-eastern  tribes  of  the  same  social  type,  but 
the  more  socially  advanced  central,  western,  and  northern 
''  nations,''  with  whom  some  of  them  are  in  touch  and 
even  intermarry.  It  is  a  dangerous  fallacy  to  suppose 
that  all  tribes  of  the  primitive  tribal  organisation  are 
solidaires  as  to  marriage,  ceremonial  rites,  and  beliefs. 

It  is  difficult  to  say  which  is  the  second  type  of  tribal 
organisation.  We  have  in  Victoria,  in  a  triangle  with 
its  apex  on  the  Murray  River,  the  organisation  already 
described  (i),  but  here  descent  is  reckoned  in  the  male, 
not  in  the  female  line.  This  implies  some  social  advance : 
social  institutions,  with  male  descent  of  the  totem  name, 
are  certain  to  become  locals  rather  than  totemistic.  The 
Kangaroos,  deriving  the  totem  name  from  the  father,  are 
a  local  clan,  in  some  cases,  like  the  Maclans  in  Glencoe. 
The  Kangaroo  name  prevails  in  the  locality.  This  cannot 
occur,  obviously,  when  the  names  are  derived  from 
mothers,  and  the  women  go  to  the  husband's  district. 
We  may  call  the  organisation  thus  described  (2a),  and  as 
{flV)  we  should  reckon  the  organisation  which  prevails,  as 
a  rule,  on  the  east  of  Southern  Australia,  in  Queensland 
and  New  South  Wales,  from  the  northerly  and  southern 
coast-line  (with  a  gap  in  the  centre  of  the  coast-line),  to 
the  eastern  limits  of  (i).  Here  we  find  (2^)  a  great  set  of 
tribes  having  female  descent,  but  each  individual  belongs 
not  only  to  one  of  two  phratries,  and  to  a  totem,  but  also 
to  a  ''  Matrimonial  Class."  In  each  phratry  there  are  two 
such  classes.  Among  the  Kamilaroi,  in  phratry  Dilbi, 
are  ''  classes  "  named  Muri  (male)  and  Kubi  (male).  In 
phratry  Kupathin  are  Ipai  (male)  and  Kumbo  (male), 
while  the  women  bear  the  feminine  forms  of   these 


I 


12  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

names.  Their  meaning  is  usually  unknown,  but  in  two 
or  three  tribes,  where  the  meaning  of  the  class  names  is 
known  with  certainty,  they  denote  animals. 

The  arrangement  works  thus,  a  man  of  phratry  Dilbi, 
and  of  matrimonial  class  Muri,  may  not  marry  any 
woman  that  he  chooses,  in  the  other  phratry,  Kupathin. 
He  can  only  marry  a  Kubatha,  that  is,  a  female  of  the 
class  Kumbo.  Their  children,  female  descent  prevail- 
ing,  are  of  Kupathin  phratry^  and  of  the  mother's  totem, 
but  do  not  belong  to  the  class  either  of  father  (Muri) 
or  of  mother  (Kumbo).  Th^  must  belong  to  the  other 
class  within  her  phratry ^  namely  Ipau  This  rule  applies 
throughout ;  thus,  if  a  man  of  phratry  Dilbi,  and  of  Kubi 
class,  marries  a  woman  of  Ipai  class  in  phratry  Kupathin, 
their  children  are  neither  of  class  Kubi  nor  of  class  Ipai, 
but  of  class  Kumbo,  the  linked  or  sister  class  of  Ipai,  in 
Kupathin  phratry. 

Suppose  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  the  class  names 
denote,  or  once  denoted  animals,  so  that,  say — 

In  phratry 

Dilbi rMuri=Turtlc 

\Kubi=Bat 
While  in  phratry 

Kupathin     .    .    .(Ipai      -Carpet  Snake. 
\Kumbo« Native  Cat 

It  is  obvious  that  male  Turtle  would  marry  female  Cat, 
and  (with  maternal  descent)  their  children  would,  by 
class  name,  be  Carpet  Snakes*  Bat  would  marry  Carpet 
Snake,  and  their  children  would,  by  class  name,  be  Cats, 
Persons  of  each  generation  would  thus  belong  to  classes 
of  difiFerent  animal  names  for  ever,  and  no  one  might 
marry  into  either  his  or  her  own  phratry,  his  or  her  own 
totem,  or  his  or  her  own  generation,  that  is,  into  his  or 
her  own  class.    It  is  exactly  (where  the  classes  bear 


MATRIMONIAL  CLASSES  13 

animal  names)  as  if  two  generoHans  had  totems.  The 
mothers  of  Muri  class  in  Dilbi  would  have  Turtle,  the 
mothers  in  Kupathin  (Ipai)  would  have  Carpet  Snake. 
Their  children,  in  Kupathin,  would  have  Cat.  Not  only 
the  phratries  and  the  totem  kins,  but  each  successive 
generation,  would  thus  be  delimited  by  bearing  an  animal 
name,  and  marriage  would  be  forbidden  between  all 
persons  not  of  di£Ferent  animal-named  phratries,  difiFerent 
animal-named  totem  kins,  and  di£Ferent  animal-named 
generationa  In  many  cases,  we  repeat,  the  names  of 
the  phratries  and  of  the  classes  have  not  yet  been  trans- 
lated, and  the  meanings  are  unknown  to  the  natives 
themselves.  That  the  class  names  were  originally  animal 
names  is  a  mere  hypothesis,  based  on  few  examples. 

Say  I  am  of  phratry  Crow,  of  totem  Lizard,  of 
generation  and  matrimonial  class  Turtle;  then  I  must 
marry  only  a  woman  of  phratry  Eagle  Hawk,  of  any 
totem  in  Eagle  Hawk  phratry,^  and  of  generation  and 
class  name  Cat.  Our  children,  with  female  descent, 
will  be  of  phratry  Eagle  Hawk,  of  totem  the  mother's, 
and  of  generation  and  class  name  Carpet  Snake.  Their 
children  wUl  be  of  phratry  Crow,  of  totem  the  mother's, 
and  of  generation  and  class  name  Cat  again ;  and  so  on 
for  ever.  Each  generation  in  a  phratry  has  its  class  name, 
and  may  not  marry  within  that  name.  The  next  genera- 
tion has  the  other  class  name,  and  may  not  marry  within 
that.  Assuming  that  phratry  names,  totem  names,  and 
generation  names  are  always  names  of  animals  (or  of 
other  objects  in  nature),  the  laws  would  amount,  we 
repeat,  simply  to  this :  No  person  may  marry  another 
person  who,  by  phratry,  or  totem,  or  generation,  owns 

^  Sometimet  memben  of  one  totem  are  said  to  be  restricted  to  marriage 
with  members  of  only  one  other  totem. 


14  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

the  same  hereditary  animal  name  or  other  name  as 
himself  or  herself.  Moreover  no  one  may  marry  a 
person  (where  matrimonial  classes  exist)  who  bears 
the  same  class  or  generation  name  as  his  mother  or 
father. 

In  practice  the  rules  are  thus  quite  simple,  mistake 
is  impossible— complicated  as  the  arrangements  look  on 
paper.  Where  totem  and  phratry  names  only  exist,  a 
man  has  merely  to  ask  a  woman, ''  What  is  your  phratry 
name  ? '"  If  it  is  his  own,  an  amour  is  forbidden.  Where 
phratry  names  are  obsolete,  and  classes  exist,  he  has  only 
to  ask,  ''What  is  your  class  name?''  If  it  is  that  of 
either  class  in  his  own  phratry  of  the  tribe,  to  love  is 
to  break  a  sacred  law.  It  is  not  necessary,  as  a  rule, 
even  to  ask  the  totem  name.  What  looks  so  perplexing 
is  in  essence,  and  in  practical  working,  of  extreme  sim- 
plicity. But  some  tribes  have  deliberately  modified  the 
rules,  to  facilitate  marriage. 

The  conspicuous  practical  result  of  the  Class  arrange- 
ment (not  primitive),  is  that  just  as  totem  law  makes  it 
impossible  for  a  person  to  marry  a  sister  or  brother 
uterine,  so  Class  law  makes  a  marriage  between  father 
and  daughter,  mother  and  son,  impossible.^  But  such 
marriages  never  occur  in  Australian  tribes  of  pristine 
organisation  (i)  which  have  no  class  names,  no  collective 
names  for  successive  generations.  The  origin  of  these 
class  or  generation  names  is  a  problem  which  will  be 
discussed  later. 

Such  is  the  Class  system  where  it  exists  in  tribes  with 
female  descent.  It  has  often  led  to  the  loss  and  disap- 
pearance of  the  phratry  names,  which  are  forgotten, 

>  Howitt,  NaHv$  Triba  of  South-East  Austraiia^  p.  284,  citing  Mr. 
J.  G.  Fnser. 


OUR  AUTHORITIES  15 

since  the  two  sets  of  opposed  class  names  do  the  phratry 
work. 

We  have  next  (3)  the  same  arrangements  with 
descent  reckoned  in  the  male  line.  This  prevails  on  the 
south-east  coast,  from  Hervey  River  to  Warwick.  In 
Gippsland,  and  in  a  section  round  Melbourne,  there  were 
''  anomalous  "  arrangements  which  need  not  now  detain 
us ;  the  archaic  systems  tended  to  die  out  altogether. 

All  these  south  central  (Dieri),  southern,  and  eastern 
tribes  may  be  studied  in  Mr.  Howitt's  book,  already 
cited,  which  contains  the  result  of  forty  years'  work,  the 
information  being  collected  partly  by  personal  research 
and  partly  through  many  correspondents.  Mr.  Howitt 
has  viewed  the  initiatory  ceremonies  of  more  than  one 
tribe,  and  is  familiar  with  their  inmost  secrets. 

For  the  tribes  of  the  centre  and  north  we  must 
consult  two  books,  the  fruits  of  the  personal  researches 
of  Mr.  Baldwin  Spencer,  M.A.,  F.R.S.,  Professor  of 
Biology  in  the  University  of  Melbourne,  and  of  Mr.  F. 
J.  Gillen,  Sub-Protector  of  Aborigines,  South  Australia.^ 
For  many  years  Mr.  Gillen  has  been  in  the  confidence  of 
the  tribes,  and  he  and  Mr.  Spencer  have  passed  many 
months  in  the  wilds,  being  admitted  to  view  the  most 
secret  ceremonies,  and  being  initiated  into  the  myths  of 
the  people.  Their  photographs  of  natives  are  numerous 
and  excellent. 

These  observers  begin  in  the  south  centre,  where  Mr. 
Howitt  leaves  o£F  in  his  northerly  researches,  and  go 
north.  They  start  with  the  Urabunna  tribe,  north-east 
of  Lake  Eyre,  congeners  of  Mr.  Howitfs  Dieri,  and 
speaking  a  dialect  akin  to  theirs,  while  the  tribe  inter- 

1  Native  Tribes  of  Central  Auttrdlia^  1899.    Northern  Tribes  of  Central 
Australia^  1904.     MacmilUn. 


i6  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

marry  with  the  Arunta  (whose  own  dialect  has  points 
in  common  with  theirs)  of  the  centre  of  the  continent 
These  Urabimna  are  apparently  in  the  form  of  social 
organisation  which  we  style  primitive  (No.  i),  but 
there  are  said,  rather  vaguely,  to  be  more  restrictions 
on  marriage  than  is  usual,  people  of  one  totem  in 
Kiraru  phratry  being  restricted  to  people  of  one  totem 
in  Matteri  phratry.^ 

They  have  phratries,  totem  kins,  apparently  no 
matrimonial  classes  (some  of  their  rules  are  imperfectly 
ascertained),  and  they  reckon  descent  in  the  female  line. 
But,  like  the  Dieri  (and  unlike  the  tribes  of  the  south  and 
east),  they  practise  subindsion;  they  have,  or  are  said 
to  have,  no  belief  in  ''  a  supernatural  anthropomorphic 
great  Being  " ;  they  believe  in  ''  old  semi-human  ances- 
tors," who  scattered  about  spirits,  which  are  perpetually 
reincarnated  in  new  members  of  the  tribe ;  they  practise 
totemic  magic ;  and  they  cultivate  the  Dieri  custom  of 
allotting  paramours.  Thus,  by  social  organisation,  they 
attach  themselves  to  the  south-eastern  tribes  (i),  but, 
like  the  Dieri,  and  even  more  so  (for,  unlike  the  Dieri, 
they  believe  in  reincarnation),  they  agree  in  ceremonies, 
and  in  the  general  idea  of  their  totemic  magic,  rites,  and 
mythical  ideas,  with  tribes  who,  as  regards  social  organi- 
sation, are  in  state  (4),  reckon  descent  in  the  male  line, 
and  possess,  not  f our ^  but  eight  matrimonial  classes. 

This  institution  of  eight  classes  is  developing  in  the 
Arunta  ''nation,''  the  people  of  the  precise  centre  of 
Australia,  who  march  with,  and  intermarry  with,  the 
Urabunna ;  at  least  the  names  for  the  second  set  of  four 
matrimonial  classes,  making  eight  in  all,  are  reaching 

>  C£  Howitt,  Native  TVibes  of  South-East  Australia^  pp.  188-189.   Native 
Tribes  of  Central  Australia,  p.  6a 


ARUNTA  SYSTEM  17 

the  Arunta  from  the  northern  tribes.  All  the  way 
further  north  to  the  Gulf  of  Carpentaria,  male  descent 
and  eight  classes  prevail,  with  subincision,  prolonged 
and  complex  ceremonials,  the  belief  in  reincarnation  of 
primal  semi-human,  semi -bestial  ancestors,  and  the 
absence  (except  in  the  Kaitish  tribe,  next  the  Arunta)  of 
any  known  belief  in  what  Mr.  Howitt  calls  the  ''All 
Father."  Totemic  magic  also  is  prevalent,  dwindling  as 
you  approach  the  north-east  coast  In  consequence  of 
reckoning  in  the  male  line  (which  necessarily  causes 
most  of  the  dwellers  in  a  group  to  be  of  the  same  totem), 
heal  organisation  is  more  advanced  in  these  tribes  than 
in  the  south  and  east. 

We  next  speak  of  social  organisation  (5),  namely, 
that  of  the  Arunta  and  Kaitish  tribes,  which  is  without 
example  in  any  other  known  totemic  society  all  over  the 
world.  The  Arunta  and  Kaitish  not  only  believe,  like 
most  northern  and  western  tribes,  in  the  perpetual  rein- 
carnation of  ancestral  spirits,  but  they,  and  they  alone, 
hold  that  each  such  spirit,  during  discamate  intervals, 
resides  in,  or  is  mainly  attached  to,  a  decorated  kind  of 
stone  amulet,  called  churinga  nanja.  These  objects,  with 
this  myth,  are  not  recorded  as  existing  among  other 
''  nations.''  When  a  child  is  born,  its  friends  hunt  for  its 
ancestral  stone  amulet  in  the  place  where  its  mother 
thinks  that  she  conceived  it,  and  around  the  nearest 
nndesvcus  of  discarnate  local  totemic  souls,  all  of  one 
totem  only.  The  aniulet  and  the  local  totemic  centre, 
with  its  haunted  nanja  rock  or  tree,  determine  the  totem 
of  the  child  Thus,  unlike  all  other  totemists,  the  Arunta 
do  not  inherit  their  totems  either  from  father  or  mother, 
or  both.  Totems  are  determined  by  local  accident.  Not 
being  hereditary,  they  are  not  exogamous :  here,  and  here 

B 


1 8  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

alone,  they  do  not  regulate  marriage.  Men  may,  and 
do,  marry  women  of  their  own  totem,  and  their  child's 
totem  may  neither  be  that  of  its  father  nor  of  its 
mother.  The  members  of  totem  groups  are  really 
members  of  societies,  which  co-operatively  work  magic 
for  the  good  of  the  totems.  The  question  arises,  Is  this 
the  primitive  form  of  totemism  ?  We  shall  later  discuss 
that  question  (Chapter  IV.). 

Meanwhile  we  conceive  the  various  types  of  social 
organisation  to  begin  with  the  south-eastern  phratries, 
totems,  and  female  reckoning  of  descent  (i)  to  advance 
to  these  plus  male  descent  (2^),  and  to  these  with  female 
descent  and  four  matrimonial  classes  (2^).  Next  we 
place  (3)  that  four-class  system  with  male  descent ;  next 
(4)  the  north-western  system  of  male  descent  with  eig^ii 
matrimonial  classes,  and  last  (as  anomalous  in  some 
respects),  (5)  the  Arunta-Kaitish  system  of  male  descent, 
eight  classes,  and  non-hereditary  non-exogamous  totems. 

As  regards  ceremonial  and  belief,  we  place  (i)  the 
tribes  south  and  east  of  the  Dieri.  (2)  The  Dieri. 
(3)  The  Urabunna,  and  north,  central,  and  western 
tribes.  (4)  The  Arunta.  The  Dieri  and  Urabunna  we 
regard  (at  least  the  Dieri)  as  pristine  in  social  organisa- 
tion, with  peculiarities  all  their  own,  but  in  ceremonial 
and  belief  more  closely  attached  to  the  central,  north, 
and  west  than  to  the  south-eastern  tribes.  As  concerns 
the  bloody  rites,  Mr.  Howitt  inclines  to  the  belief  (cor- 
roborated by  legends,  whatever  their  value)  that  ''a 
northern  origin  must  ultimately  be  assigned  to  these 
ceremonies.*'  ^  It  is  natural  to  assume  that  the  more  cruel 
initiatory  rites  are  the  more  archaic,  and  that  the  tribes 
which  practise  them  are  the  more  pristine.  But  this  is 
^  Howitt,  op.  dt^  p,  676W    a:  r.,  p.  aa 


VARIOUS  RITES  AND  BELIEFS  19 

not  our  opinion  nor  that  of  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen. 
The  older  rite  is  the  mere  knocking  out  of  front  teeth 
(also  used  by  the  Masai  of  East  Central  Africa).  This 
rite,  in  Central  Australia,  ''has  lost  its  old  meaning,  its 
place  has  been  taken  by  other  rites."  ^  .  .  •  Increased 
cruelty  accompanies  social  advance  in  this  instance. 
In  another  matter  innovation  comes  from  the  north. 
Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  are  of  the  opinion  that 
''  changes  in  totemic  matters  have  been  slowly  passing 
down  from  north  to  south.''  The  eight  classes,  in 
place  of  four  classes,  are  known  as  a  matter  of  fact  to 
have  actually  ''reached  the  Arunta  from  the  north, 
and  at  the  present  moment  are  spreading  south- 
wards."* 

Again,  a  feebler  form  of  the  reincarnation  belief, 
namely,  that  souls  of  the  young  who  die  uninitiated  are 
reincarnated,  occurs  in  the  Euahlayi  tribe  of  north- 
western New  South  Wales.'  Whether  the  Euahlayi 
belief  came  from  the  north,  in  a  limited  way,  or  whether 
it  is  the  germinal  state  of  the  northern  belief,  is  uncertain. 
It  is  plain  that  if  bloody  rites  and  eight  classes  may  come 
down  from  the  north,  totemic  magic  and  the  faith  in 
reincarnation  may  also  have  done  so,  and  thus  modified 
the  rites  and  "religious"  opinions  of  the  Dieri  and 
Urabunna,  who  are  said  still  to  be,  socially,  in  the  most 
pristine  state,  that  of  phratries  and  female  descent,  with- 
out matrimonial  classes.^  It  is  also  obvious  that  if  the 
Kaitish  faith  in  a  sky-dweller  (rare  in  northern  tribes)  be 
a  "  sport,"  and  if  the  Arunta  ckuringa  nanja^  plus  non- 

^  Native  TrSbis  of  Contrai  Australia^  p.  214.    The  same  opinion  is  itated 
as  very  probable  in  Northern  TVides  of  Central  AustraKa^  p.  329^ 
*  AT.  7:,pi2a 

>  Mn.  Luigloh  Parker*s  M.S. 
^  I  am  uncertain  as  to  this  point  among  the  Urabnnna,  as  will  appear  later. 


20  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

hereditary  and  non-exogamous  totems,  be  a  ''  sport,"  the 
Dieri  and  Urabunna  custom,  too,  of  solemnly  allotted 
permanent  paramours  may  be  a  thing  of  isolated  and 
special  development,  not  a  survival  of  an  age  of  ''group 
marriage." 


CHAPTER  II 
METHOD  OF  INQUIRY 

Method  of  inquiry — ^Enors  to  be  avoided — Origin  of  totemism  not  to  be 
looked  for  among  the  "  iports  "  of  socially  advanced  tribes— Nor  among 
tribes  of  male  reckoning  of  descent — ^Nor  in  the  myths  explanatory  of 
origin  of  totemism — Myths  of  origin  of  heraldic  bearings  compared — 
Tribes  in  state  of  ancestor-worship :  their  totemic  myths  cannot  be  tme 
— Case  of  Bantu  myths  (African)--Their  myth  implies  ancestor-worship 
— ^Another  African  myth  derives  irida/  totems  from  tribal  nicknames- 
No  totemic  myths  are  of  any  historic  value — ^The  use  of  conjecture — 
Every  theory  must  start  from  conjecture — ^Two  possible  conjectures  as  to 
earliest  men  gregarious  (the  horde),  or  lonely  sire,  female  mates,  and  off- 
spring — Five  possible  conjectures  as  to  the  animal  names  of  kinships  in 
relation  to  early  society  and  exogamy— Theory  of  the  author ;  of  Professor 
Spencer ;  of  Dr.  Durkheim ;  of  Mr.  Hill-Tout ;  of  Mr.  Howitt— Note  on 
McLennan's  theory  of  exogamy. 

We  have  now  given  the  essential  facts  in  the  problem  of 
early  society  as  it  exists  in  various  forms  among  the 
most  isolated  and  pristine  peoples  extant  It  has  been 
shown  that  the  sets  of  seniority  (classes),  the  exogamous 
moieties  (phratries),  and  the  kinships  in  each  tribe  bear 
names  which,  when  translated,  are  usually  found  to 
denote  animals.  Especially  the  names  of  the  toten; 
kindreds,  and  of  the  totems,  are  commonly  names  of 
animals  or  plants.  If  we  can  discover  why  this  is  so, 
we  are  near  the  discovery  of  the  origin  of  totemism. 
Meanwhile  we  o£Fer  some  remarks  as  to  the  method 
to  be  pursued  in  the  search  for  a  theory  which  will 
colligate  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  explain  the  origin 
of  totemic  society.  In  the  first  place  certain  needful 
warnings  must  be  given,  certain  reefs  which  usually 


22  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

wreck  e£Forts  to  construct  a  satisfactory  hypothesis  must 
be  marked. 

First,  it  will  be  vain  to  look  for  the  origin  of  totemism 
either  among  advanced  and  therefore  non-pristine  Aus- 
tralian types  of  tribal  organisation,  or  among  peoples  not 
Australian,  who  are  infinitely  more  forward  than  the 
Australians  in  the  arts  of  life,  and  in  the  possession  of 
property.  Such  progressive  peoples  may  present  many 
interesting  social  phenomena,  but,  as  regards  pure /frVni- 
Hve  totemism,  they  dwell  on  ''fragments  of  a  broken 
world."  The  totemic  fragments,  among  them,  are 
twisted  and  shattered  strata,  with  fantastic  features 
which  cannot  be  primordial,  but  are  metamorphic.  Ac- 
counts of  these  societies  are  often  puzzling,  and  the 
strange  confused  terms  used  by  the  reporters,  especially 
in  America,  frequently  make  them  unintelligible. 

The  learned,  who  are  curious  in  these  matters,  would 
have  saved  themselves  much  time  and  labour  had  they 
kept  two  conspicuous  facts  before  their  eyes. 

(i)  It  is  useless  to  look  for  the  origins  of  totemism 
among  the  peculiarities  and  ''sports"  which  always 
attend  the  decadence  of  totemism,  consequent  on  the 
change  from  female  to  male  lineage,  as  Mr.  Howitt,  our 
leader  in  these  researches,  has  always  insisted.  To 
search  for  the  beginnings  among  late  and  abnormal 
phenomena,  things  isolated,  done  in  a  corner,  and  not 
found  among  the  tribal  organisations  af  the  earliest 
types,  is  to  follow  a  trail  sure  to  be  misleading. 

(2)  The  second  warning  is  to  be  inferred  from  the 
first.  It  is  waste  of  time  to  seek  for  the  origin  of 
totemism  in  anything — an  animal  name,  a  sacred  animal, 
a  paternal  soul  tenanting  an  animal — which  is  inherited 
from  its  first  owner,  he  being  an  individual  ancestor 


MYTHS  OF  TOXEMIC  ORIGINS  23 

male.  Such  inheritance  implies  the  existence  of  reckon- 
ing descent  in  the  male  linej  and  totemism  conspicuously 
began  in,  and  is  least  contaminated  in,  tribes  who  reckon 
descent  in  the  female  line. 

Another  stone  of  stumbling  comes  from  the  same 
logical  formation.  The  error  is,  to  look  for  origins  in 
myths  about  origins,  told  among  advanced  or  early 
societies.  If  a  people  has  advanced  far  in  material 
culture,  if  it  is  agricultural,  breeds  cattle,  and  works  the 
metals,  of  course  it  cannot  be  primitive.  However,  it 
may  retain  vestiges  of  totemism,  and,  if  it  does,  it  will 
explain  them  by  a  story,  a  myth  of  its  own,  just  as 
modern  families,  and  even  cities,  have  their  myths  to 
account  for  the  origin,  now  forgotten,  of  their  armorial 
bearings,  or  crests — the  dagger  in  the  city  shield,  the 
Skene  of  the  Skenes,  the  sawn  tree  of  the  Hamiltons,  the 
lyon  of  the  Stuarts. 

Now  an  agricultural,  metallurgic  people,  with  male 
descent,  in  the  middle  barbarism,  will  explain  its  sur- 
vivals of  totemism  by  a  myth  natural  in  its  intellectual 
and  social  condition ;  but  not  natural  in  the  condition 
of  the  homeless  nomad  hunters,  among  whom  totemism 
arose.  For  example,  we  have  no  reason  to  suspect  that 
when  totemism  began  men  had  a  highly  developed  re- 
ligion of  ancestor-worship.  Such  a  religion  has  not  yet 
been  evolved  in  Australia,  where  the  names  of  the  dead 
are  usually  tabooed,  where  there  is  hardly  a  trace  of 
prayers,  hardly  a  trace  of  o£Ferings  to  the  dead,  and  none 
of  o£Ferings  to  animals.^  The  more  pristine  Australians, 
therefore,  do  not  explain  their  totems  as  containing  the 
souls  of  ancestral  spirits.    On  the  other  hand,  when  the 

^  The  Dieri  tribe  do  pny  to  the  Muia-Muia,  or  ny^ihical  snoeston,  bat 
not,  apparently,  to  the  rtmsmbtnd  6ieMiL 


24  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Bantu  tribes  of  Southern  Africa — agricultural,  with 
settled  villages,  with  kings,  and  with  many  of  the  crafts^ 
such  as  metallurgy— explain  the  origin  of  their  tribal 
names  derived  from  animals  on  the  lines  of  their  religion 
— ancestor-worship — ^their  explanation  may  be  neglected 
as  far  as  our  present  purpose  is  concerned.  It  is  only 
their  theory,  only  the  myth  which,  in  their  intellectual 
and  religious  condition,  they  are  bound  to  tell,  and  it 
can  throw  no  light  on  the  origin  of  sacred  animals. 

The  Bantu  local  tribes,  according  to  Mr.  M'Call  Theal, 
have  Siboko,  that  is,  name-giving  animals.  The  tribes- 
men will  not  kill,  or  eat,  or  touch, ''  or  in  any  way  come 
into  contact  with  **  their  Siboko^  if  they  can  avoid  doing 
so.  A  man,  asked  "What  do  you  dance?"  replies  by 
giving  the  name  of  his  Siboko,  which  is,  or  once  was, 
honoured  in  mystic  or  magical  dances. 

''  When  a  division  of  a  tribe  took  place,  each  section 
retained  the  same  ancestral  animal,"  and  men  thus  trace 
dispersed  segments  of  their  tribe,  or  they  thus  account 
for  the  existence  of  other  tribes  of  the  same  Siboko  as 
themselves. 

Things  being  in  this  condition,  an  ancestor-worship- 
ping people  has  to  explain  the  circumstances  by  a  myth. 
Being  an  ancestor-worshipping  people,  the  Bantu  ex- 
plain the  circumstance,  as  they  were  certain  to  do,  by  a 
myth  of  ancestral  spirits.  ''Each  tribe  regarded  some 
particular  animal  as  the  one  selected  by  the  ghosts  of  its 
kindred,  and  therefore  looked  upon  it  as  sacred." 

It  should  be  superfluous  to  say  that  the  Bantu 
myth  cannot  possibly  throw  any  light  on  the  real  origin 
of  totemism.  The  Bantu,  ancestor-worshippers  of  great 
piety,  find  themselves  saddled  with  sacred  tribal  Siboko; 
why,  they  know  not    So  they  naturally  invent  the  fable 


MYTH  OF  NICKNAMES  25 

that  the  Siboko^  which  are  sacred,  are  sacred  because 
they  are  the  shrines  of  what  to  them  are  really  sacred, 
namely,  ancestral  spirits.^  But  they  also  cherish  another 
totally  di£Ferent  myth  to  explain  their  Siboko. 

We  now  give  this  South  African  myth,  which  explains 
tribal  Sidoko,  and  their  origin,  not  on  the  lines  of 
ancestor-worship,  but,  rather  to  my  annoyance,  on  the 
lines  of  my  own  theory  of  the  Origin  of  Totems  I 

On  December  9, 1879,  the  Rev.  Roger  Price,  of  Mole- 
pole,  in  the  northern  Bakuena  country,  wrote  as  follows 
to  Mr.  W.  G.  Stow,  Geological  Survey,  South  Africa.  He 
gives  the  myth  which  is  told  to  account  for  the  Siboko 
or  tribal  sacred  and  name-giving  animal  of  the  Bahurut- 
she — Baboons.  (These  animal  names  in  this  part  of 
Africa  denote  local  tribes^  not  totem  kins  within  a  local 
tribe.) 

''Tradition  says  that  about  the  time  the  separation 
took  place  between  the  Bahurutshe  and  the  Bakuena, 
Baboons  entered  the  gardens  of  the  Bahurutshe  and  ate 
their  pumpkins,  before  the  proper  time  for  commencing 
to  eat  the  fruits  of  the  new  year.  The  Bahurutshe  were 
unwilling  that  the  pumpkins  which  the  baboons  had 
broken  o£F  and  nibbled  should  be  wasted,  and  ate  them 
accordingly.  This  act  is  said  to  have  led  to  the 
Bahurutshe  being  called  Buchwene,  Baboon  people — 
which"  (namely,  the  Baboon)  ''is  their  Siboko  to  this 
day — and  their  having  the  precedence  ever  afterwards 
in  the  matter  of  taking  the  first  bite  of  the  new  year's 
fruits.  U  this  be  the  true  explanation,"  adds  Mr.  Price, 
-"it  is  evident  that  what  is  now  used  as  a  term  of  honour 
was  once  a  term  of  reproach.    The  Bakuena,  too,  are 

1  ''Totemism,  South  Africa,"  J.  G.  Fruer,  Man^  1901,  No.  xix.     Mr. 
Fnier  does  not,  of  course,  adopt  the  Bantu  myih  as  settling  the  question. 


26  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

said  to  owe  their  Sidoko  (the  Crocodile)  to  the  fact  that 
their  people  once  ate  an  ox  which  had  t>een  killed  by  a 
crocodile." 

Mr.  Price,  therefore,  is  strongly  inclined  to  think 
**  that  the  Siboko  of  all  the  tribes  was  originally  a  kind 
of  nickname  or  term  of  reproach,  but,"  he  adds, ''  there 
is  a  good  deal  of  mystery  about  the  whole  thing." 

On  this  point  Mr.  Stow,  to  whom  Mr.  Price  wrote 
the  letter  just  cited,  remarks  in  his  MS.:  ''From  the 
foregoing  facts  it  would  seem  possible  that  the  origin  of 
the  Siboko  among  these  tribes  arose  from  some  sobriquet 
that  had  been  given  to  them,  and  that,  in  course  of  time, 
as  their  superstitious  and  devotional  feelings  became 
more  developed,  these  tribal  symbols  became  objects  of 
veneration  and  superstitious  awe,  whose  favour  was  to 
be  propitiated  or  malign  influence  averted  .  .  ."  ^ 

Here  it  will  be  seen  that  these  South  African  tribes 
account  for  their  Siboko  now  by  the  myth  deriving  the 
sacredness  of  the  tribal  animal  from  ancestor-worship, 
as  reported  by  Mr.  Theal,  and  again  by  nicknames 
given  to  the  tribes  on  account  of  certain  undignified 
incidents. 

This  latter  theory  is  very  like  my  own  as  stated 
in  Social  Origins^  and  to  be  set  forth  and  reinforced 
later  in  this  work.  But  the  theory,  as  held  by  the 
Bahurutshe  and  Bakuena,  does  not  help  to  confirm  mine 
in  the  slightest  degree.  Among  these  very  advanced 
African  tribes,  the  Sibokoj  or  tribal  sacred  animal,  is  the 
animal  of  the  local  tribe^  not,  as  in  pure  totemism,  of  the 
scattered  exogamous  kin.  It  is  probably  a  lingering 
remnant  of  totemism.  The  totem  of  the  most  powerful 
local  group  in  a  tribe  having  descent  through  males, 
^  Bleek,  MSS.,  Saa    I  owe  the  extuct  to  Miss  C\Q.  Bume. 


MYTHS  ARE  SAVAGE   HYPOTHESES       27 

appears  to  have  become  the  Siioko  of  the  whole  tribe, 
while  the  other  totems  have  died  out.  It  is  not  probable 
that  a  nickname  of  remembered  origin,  given  in  recent 
times  to  a  tribe  of  relatively  advanced  civilisation,  should, 
as  the  myth  asserts,  not  only  have  become  a  name  of 
honour,  but  should  have  founded  tribal  animal-worship. 

It  was  in  a  low  state  of  culture  no  longer  found  on 
earth,  that  I  conceive  the  animal  names  of  groups  not 
yet  totemic,  names  of  origin  no  longer  remembered,  to 
have  arisen  and  become  the  germ  of  totemism. 

Myths  of  the  origin  of  totemism,  in  short,  are  of 
absolutely  no  historic  value.  Siboko  no  longer  arise  in 
the  manner  postulated  by  these  African  myths;  these 
myths  are  not  based  on  experience  any  more  than  is  the 
Tsimshian  myth  of  the  Bear  Totem,  to  be  criticised 
later  in  a  chapter  on  American  Totemism.  We  are  to 
be  on  our  guard,  then,  against  looking  for  the  origins 
of  totemism  among  the  myths  of  peoples  of  relatively 
advanced  culture,  such  as  the  village-dwelling  Indians 
of  the  north-west  coast  of  America.  We  must  not  look 
for  origins  among  tribes,  even  if  otherwise  pristine,  who 
reckon  by  male  descent.  We  must  look  on  all  savage 
myths  of  origins  merely  as  savage  hypotheses,  which, 
in  fact,  usually  agree  with  one  or  other  of  our  scientific 
modern  hypotheses,  but  yield  them  no  corroboration. 

On  the  common  fallacy  of  regarding  the  tribe  of 
to-day,  with  its  relative  powers,  as  primitive,  we  have 
spoken  in  Chapter  I. 

By  the  nature  of  the  case,  as  the  origin  of  totemism 
lies  far  beyond  our  powers  of  historical  examination  or 
of  experiment,  we  must  have  recourse  as  regards  this 
matter  to  conjecture. 

Here  a  word  might  be  said  as  to  the  method  of 


28  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

conjecture  about  institutions  of  which  the  origins  are 
concealed  ''  in  the  dark  backward  and  abysm  of  time." 

There  are  conjectures  and  conjectures  I  None  is 
capable  in  every  detail  of  historical  demonstration,  but 
one  guess  may  explain  all  the  known  facts,  and  others 
may  explain  few  or  none.  We  are  dealing  with  human 
a£Fairs — they  whose  groups  first  answered  to  animal 
group-names  were  men  as  much  as  we  are.  They 
had  reason;  they  had  human  language,  spoken  or  by 
gesture,  and  human  passions.  That  conjecture,  there- 
fore, which  deals  with  the  first  totemists  as  men,  men 
with  plenty  of  human  nature,  is  better  than  any  rival 
guess  which  runs  contrary  to  human  nature  as  known 
in  our  experience  of  man,  savage,  barbaric,  or  civilised. 

Once  more,  a  set  of  guesses  which  are  consistent 
with  themselves  is  better  than  a  set  of  guesses  which 
can  be  shown  to  be  even  ludicrously  self-contradictory. 
If  any  guess,  again,  colligates  all  the  known  facts,  if  any 
conjectural  system  will  "march,"  will  meet  every  known 
circumstance  in  the  face,  manifestly  it  is  a  better  system 
than  one  which  stumbles,  breaks  down,  evades  giving 
an  answer  to  the  problems,  says  that  they  are  insoluble, 
is  in  contradiction  with  itself,  and  does  not  even  try 
to  colligate  all  the  known  facts.  A  consistent  system, 
unmarred  by  self*  contradictions ;  in  accordance  with 
known  human  nature ;  in  accordance,  too,  with  recog- 
nised rules  of  evolution,  and  of  logic ;  and  co-ordinating 
all  known  facts,  if  it  is  tried  on  them,  cannot  be  dis- 
missed with  the  remark  that ''  there  are  plenty  of  other 
possible  guesses." 

Our  method  must  be — having  already  stated  the 
facts  as  they  present  themselves  in  the  most  primitive 
organisation  of   the  most   archaic   society   extant — to 


THEORY  OF  SMALL  PRIMAL  GROUPS     29 

enumerate  all  the  possible  conjectures  which  have  been 
logically  (or  even  illogically)  made  as  to  the  origin  of 
the  institutions  before  us. 

All  theories  as  to  how  these  institutions  arose,  must 
rest,  primarily,  on  a  basis  of  conjecture  as  to  the  original 
social  character  of  man.  Nowhere  do  we  see  absolutely 
primitive  man,  and  a  totemic  system  in  the  making. 
The  processes  of  evolution  must  have  been  very 
gradually  developed  in  the  course  of  distant  ages,  but 
our  conjecture  as  to  the  nature,  in  each  case,  of  the 
processes  must  be  in  accordance  with  what  is  known 
of  human  nature.  Conjecture,  too,  has  its  logical 
limitations. 

We  must  first  make  our  choice,  therefore,  between 
the  guess  that  the  earliest  human  beings  lived  in  very 
small  groups  (as,  in  everyday  life,  the  natives  of  Australia 
are  in  many  cases  still  compelled  to  do  by  the  precarious 
nature  of  their  food  supplies),  or  the  guess  that  earliest 
man  was  gregarious,  and  dwelt  in  a  promiscuous  horde 
with  no  sort  of  restraint.  One  or  other  view  must  be 
correct 

On  the  former  guess  (men  originally  lived  in  very 
small  groups),  the  probable  mutual  hostility  of  group 
to  rival  group,  the  authority  of  the  strongest  male  in 
each  group,  and  the  passions  of  jealousy,  love,  and  hate, 
must  inevitably  have  produced  sonu  rudimentary  restric- 
tions on  absolute  archaic  freedom.  Some  people  would 
be  prevented  from  doing  some  things,  they  must  have 
been  checked  by  the  hand  of  the  stronger;  and  from 
the  habit  of  restraint  customary  rules  would  arise. 
The  advocates  of  the  alternative  conjecture— that  man 
was  gregarious,  and  utterly  promiscuous — take  it  for 
granted  (it  seems  to  me)  that  the  older  and  stronger 


30  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

males  established  no  rudimentary  restrictions  on  the 
freedom  of  the  a£Fections,  but  allowed  the  young  males 
to  share  with  them  the  females  in  the  horde,  and  that 
they  permitted  both  sexes  to  go  entirely  as  they  pleased, 
till,  for  some  unknown  reason  and  by  some  unknown 
authority,  the  horde  was  bisected  into  exogamous  moieties 
(phratries),  and  after  somehow  developing  totem  kins 
(unless  animal-named  magical  groups  had  been  pre- 
viously developed,  on  purpose  to  work  magic),  became 
a  tribe  with  two  phratries. 

It  is  not  even  necessary  for  us  to  deny  that  the 
ancestors  of  man  were  originally  communal  and  gre- 
garious. What  we  deem  to  be  impossible  is  that,  till 
man  had  developed  into  something  more  like  himself, 
as  we  know  him,  than  an  animal  without  jealousy,  and 
ignorant  of  anything  prejudicial  to  any  one's  interests 
in  promiscuous  unions,  he  could  begin  to  evolve  his 
actual  tribal  institutions.  This  is  also  the  opinion  of 
Mr.  Howitt,  as  we  shall  see  later. 

Thus  whoever  tries  to  disengage  the  evolutionary  pro- 
cesses which  produced  the  existing  society  of  Australia 
must  commence  by  making  his  choice  between  the  two 
conjectures-— early  man  gregarious,  promiscuous,  and 
anarchist ;  or  early  man  unsociable,  fierce,  bullying,  and 
jealous.  A  via  media  is  attempted,  however,'  by  Mr. 
Howitt,  to  which  we  shall  return. 

Next,  it  is  clear  and  certain  that  some  human  beliefs 
abo*;t  the  animals  which  give  their  names,  in  known 
cases,  to  the  two  large  exogamous  divisions  of  the  tribe 
(phratries),  and  about  the  other  animals  which  give 
names  to  the  totem  kins,  and,  in  one  or  two  cases,  to 
the  matrimonial  classes,  must  t>e,  in  some  way,  con- 
nected with  the  prohibitions  to  marry,  first  within  the 


POSSIBLE  CONJECTURES  31 

phratries,  then,  perhaps,  within  the  totem  kins,  then 
within  the  Classes  (or  within  the  same  generation). 

Thus  there  are  here  five  courses  which  conjecture 
can  logically  take. 

(a)  Members  of  certain  recognised  human  groups 
already  married  habitually  out  of  their  group  into  other 
groups,  ie/ore  the  animal  names  (now  totem  names)  were 
given  to  the  groups.  The  names  came  later  and  merely 
marked,  at  first,  and  then  sanctioned,  the  limits  within 
which  marriage  had  already  been  forbidden  while  the 
groups  were  still  nameless. 

Or  (A)  the  animal  names  of  the  phratries  and  totem 
kins  existed  (perhaps  as  denoting  groups  which  worked 
magic  for  the  behoof  of  each  animal)  ie/ore  marriage 
was  forbidden  within  their  limits.  Later,  for  some 
reason,  prohibitions  were  enacted. 

Or  (c)  at  one  time  there  were  no  marriage  regulations 
at  all,  but  these  arose  when,  apparently  for  some  religious 
reason,  a  hitherto  undivided  communal  horde  split  into 
two  sections,  each  of  which  revered  a  different  name- 
giving  animal  as  their  ''god"  (totem),  claimed  descent 
from  it,  and,  out  of  respect  to  their  ''god,"  did  not 
marry  any  of  those  who  professed  its  faith,  and  were 
called  by  its  name,  but  always  married  persons  of  another 
name  and  "god." 

Or  (1/)  men  were  at  first  in  groups,  intermarrying 
within  the  group.  These  groups  received  names  from 
animals  and  other  objects,  because  individual  men 
adopted  animal  "  familiars,"  as  Bear,  Elk,  Duck,  Potato, 
Pine-tree.  The  sisters  of  the  men  next  adopted  these 
animal  or  vegetable  "  familiars,"  or  protective  creatures, 
from  their  brothers,  and  bequeathed  them,  by  female 
descent,  to  their  children.   These  children  became  groups 


32     THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

bearing  such  names  as  Bear,  Potato,  Duck,  and  so  on. 
These  groups  made  treaties  of  marriage  with  each  other, 
for  political  reasons  of  acquiring  strength  by  union.  The 
treaties  declared  that  Duck  should  never  marry  Duck, 
but  always  Elk,  and  vice  versa.  This  was  exogamy,  in- 
stituted for  political  purposes,  to  use  the  word  ''political" 
proleptically. 

Or  (^)  men  were  at  first  in  a  promiscuous  incestuous 
horde,  but,  perceiving  the  evils  of  this  condition  (what- 
ever these  evils  might  be  taken  to  be),  they  divided  it 
into  two  halves,  of  which  one  must  never  marry  within 
itself,  but  always  in  the  other.  To  these  divisions  animal 
names  were  given ;  they  are  the  phratries.  They  threw 
o£F  colonies,  or  accepted  other  groups,  which  took  new 
animal  names,  and  are  now  the  totem  kins. 

Finally,  in  (/)  conjectures  (a)  and  (r)  may  be  com- 
bined thus :  groups  of  men,  still  nameless  as  groups, 
had  for  certain  reasons  the  habit  of  not  marrying  within 
themselves ;  but,  after  receiving  animal  names,  they  de- 
veloped an  idea  that  the  animal  of  each  group  was  its 
kinsman,  and  that,  for  a  certain  superstitious  reason,  it 
was  even  more  wrong  than  it  had  been  before,  to  marry 
''  within  the  blood  "  of  the  animal,  as,  for  Emu  to  marry 
Emu.  Or  (/2)  the  small  groups  did  marry  within  them- 
selves till,  after  receiving  animal  names,  they  evolved  the 
superstition  that  such  marriage  was  a  sin  against  the 
animals,  and  so  became  exogamous. 

On  the  point  of  the  original  state  of  society  con- 
jecture seems  to  be  limited  to  this  field  of  possible 
choices.  At  least  I  am  acquainted  with  no  theory 
hitherto  propounded,  which  does  not  set  out  from  one 
or  other  of  these  conjectural  bases.  We  must  not  attack 
each  other's  ideas  merely  because  they  start  from  con- 


FIVE  THEORIES  33 

jectures  :  they  can  start  in  no  other  way.  Our  method 
must  be  to  discover  which  conjecture,  as  it  is  deve- 
loped, most  consistently  and  successfully  colligates  all 
the  ascertained  facts  and  best  endures  the  touchstone 
of  logic. 

Of  the  hypotheses  enumerated  above,  the  system  to 
be  advocated  here  is  that  marked  (/  i  and  2).  Men, 
whatever  their  brutal  ancestors  may  have  done,  when 
they  became  men  indeed,  lived  originally  in  small  anony- 
mous local  groups,  and  had,  for  a  reason  to  be  given,  the 
habit  of  selecting  female  mates  from  groups  not  their 
own.  Or,  if  they  had  not  this  habit  they  developed  the 
rule,  after  the  previously  anonymous  local  groups  had 
received  animal  names,  and  after  the  name-giving  animals 
came  to  receive  the  measure  of  respect  at  present  given 
to  them  as  totems. 

The  second  hypothesis  (b)  (that  the  animal  names 
of  the  groups  were  originally  those  of  societies  which 
worked  magic,  each  for  an  animal,  and  that  the  pro- 
hibition on  marriage  was  later  introduced)  has  been 
suggested  by  Professor  Baldwin  Spencer  and  Mr.  J.  G. 
Frazer,  and  is  accepted  by  Mr.  Howitt. 

The  third  conjecture  {c)  (man  originally  promiscuous, 
but  ceasing  to  be  so  from  religious  respect  for  the  totem, 
or  ''god'')  is  that  of  Dr.  Durkheim. 

The  fourth  theory  (d)  is  that  of  Mr.  Hill-Tout^ 

The  fifth  theory  {e)  was  that  of  Mr.  Howitt.  He  now 
adopts  the  similar  theory  of  Mr.  Spencer  {b). 

1  I  have  not  included  the  theory  of  Dr.  Westermarck,  in  the  History  of 
Human  Marriago,  because  that  work  is  written  without  any  reference  to 
tote 


34  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 


NOTE 

I  have  not  indttded  the  theory  of  Mr.  J.  F.  McLennan,  the  founder 
of  all  research  into  totemism.  In  his  opinion,  totemism,  that  is,  the 
possession  by  difTerent  stocks  of  different  name-giving  animals,  "^  is 
older  than  exogamy  in  all  cases."  That  is,  as  Mr.  Robertson  Smith 
explains,  ''it  is  easy  to  see  that  exogamy  necessarily  presupposes  the 
existence  of  a  system  of  kinship  which  took  no  account  of  degrees, 
but  only  of  participation  in  a  common  stock.  Such  an  idea  as  this 
could  not  be  conceived  by  savages  in  an  abstract  form;  it  must 
necessarily  have  had  a  concrete  expression,  or  rather  must  have  been 
thought  under  a  concrete  and  tangible  form,  and  that  form  seems  to 
have  been  always  supplied  by  totemism."  {Kinship  and  Marriage 
in  Early  Arahia^  p.  189,  1885).  This  means  that,  before  they  were 
exogamous,  men  existed  in  groups  of  animal  name,  as  Ravens,  Wolves, 
Ants,  and  so  on.  When  they  became  conscious  of  kinship,  and  re- 
solved to  marry  out  of  the  kin,  or  stock,  they  fixed  the  name,  say 
Raven,  Wolf,  or  what  not,  as  the  limit  within  which  there  must  be  no 
marriage.  But  Mr.  McLennan's  theory  as  to  why  they  determined 
to  take  no  wives  within  the  stock  and  name,  has  never  been  accepted. 
(See  Westermarck,  History  of  Human  Marriage^  pp.  31 1-314.) 

Mr.  McLennan  supposed  that  female  in&ntidde  made  women 
scarce  in  each  group,  and  that  therefore  they  stole  each  other's  girls, 
and,  finally,  abstained  from  their  own.  But  the  objections  to  this 
hypothesis  are  infinite  and  obvious.  At  one  time  Mr.  McLennan 
thought  that  tattooing  was  the  origin  of  totemism.  Members  of  each 
group  tattooed  the  semblance  of  an  animal  on  their  flesh — ^but,  as  &r 
as  I  am  aware,  he  did  not  ask  why  they  adopted  this  practice.  Mani- 
festly a  sense  of  some  special  connection  between  the  animal  and  the 
group  must  have  been  prior  to  the  marking  of  the  members  of  the 
group  with  the  effigy  of  the  animal.  What  gave  rise  to  this  belief  in 
the  connection?  (See  Chapter  VL,  critidsm  of  Dr.  Pikler).  Mr. 
McLennan  merely  mentioned  to  me,  in  conversation,  this  idea,  which 
he  later  abandoned.  It  had  previously  occurred  to  Garcilasso  de  la 
Vega  that  the  germ  of  totemism  was  to  be  found  in  the  mere  desire  to 
differentiate  group  from  group ;  which  is  the  theory  to  be  urged  later, 
the  names  being  the  instruments  of  differentiation. 

Mr.  A.  K.  Keane,  as  in  Mr.  McLennan's  abandoned  conjecture, 
and  as  in  the  theory  of  Dr.  Pikler,  makes  totemism  arise  in  "  heraldic 
badges,"  "a  mere  device  for  distinguishing  one  individual  from 
another,  one  femily  or  clan  group  from  another  ...  the  personal  or 
fJEunily  name  precedes  the  totem,  which  grows  out  of  it."  (Ethnology^ 
pp.  9,  II). 


CHAPTER   III 
THEORY  OF   PRIMAL  PROMISCUITY 

Why  did  man,  if  once  promiscuous,  regulate  the  relations  of  the  sezes^— 
Theory  of  Professor  Spencer — Animal-named  magical  societies  were 
prior  to  regulation  of  marriage — ^Theory  of  Mr.  Howitt — Regulations 
introduced  by  inspired  medicine  man — His  motives  unknown^-The 
theory  postulates  the  pristine  existence  of  the  organised  tribe  of  to-day, 
and  of  belief  in  the  All  Father^Reasons  for  holding  that  men  were 
originally  promiscuous:  (i)  So-called  sunaval  of  so-called  "group 
marriage";  (3)  IndusiTe  names  of  human  relationships — Betrothals 
not  denied — A  form  of  marriage — Mitigated  by  Pirauru — Allotment 
of  paramours  at  feasts — Is  Pirauru  a  survival  of  group  marriage  ?— Or 
a  rare  case  of  limitation  of  custom  of  feasts  of  license  —  Examples  of 
such  saturnalia — Fiji,  Arunta,  Urabunna,  Dieri — Degrees  of  license- 
Argument  against  the  author's  opinion  —  Laws  of  incest  older  than 
marriage — Names  of  relationships — Indicate  tribal  status,  not  degrees  of 
consanguinity— Fallacy  exposed  —  Starcke  vtnus  Morgan's  theory  of 
primal  promiscuity — Dr.  Durkheim  on  Choctaw  names  of  relation^ps 
— ^A  man  cannot  regard  his  second  cousin  as  his  mother — Dr.  FiKm 
on  anomalous  terms  of  relationship — Grand&thers  and  grandsons  call 
each  other  "brothers" — Noa  denotes  a  man's  wife  and  also  all  women 
whom  he  might  legally  wed — Proof  that  terms  of  relationship  do  not 
denote  consanguinity — The  Pirraiuru  custom  implies  previous  marriage, 
and  is  not  logically  thinkable  without  it — Descriptions  of  Pirrauru — The 
Kandri  ceremony  merely  modifies  pre-existing  marriage — Pirrauru  is  not 
"  group  marriage — Is  found  only  in  tribes  of  the  Matteri  Kiraru  phratries 
— Not  found  in  south-eastern  tribes — Mr.  Howitt's  "survivals"  do  not 
mean  *'  group  marriage." 

In  the  theories  which  postulate  that  man  began  in  a 
communal  horde,  with  no  idea  of  regulating  sexual 
unions  at  all — because,  having  no  notion  of  consan- 
guinity, or  of  harm  in  consanguine  marriages,  he  saw 
nothing  to  regulate — the  initial  difficulty  is,  how  did  he 
ever  come  to  change  his  nature  and  to  see  that  a  rule 
must  be  made,  as  made  it  has  been?      Mr.   Howitt 

S5 


< 


36     THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

endeavours  (if  I  grasp  his  meaning)  to  show  how  man  did 
at  last  see  it,  and  therefore  bisected  the  horde  into  inter- 
marrying phratries.  Mr.  Spencer  has  only  asserted 
that,  while  man  saw  nothing  to  regulate  in  marriages, 
he  evolved  an  organisation,  that  of  the  phratries  and 
classes,  which  did  come,  somehow,  to  regulate  them. 
Dr.  Durkheim  takes  it,  that  man  if  he  was  originally  pro- 
miscuous, later  regulated  marriages  out  of  respect  to  his 
totems,  which  were  his  gods.  Mr.  Hill-Tout  supposes 
that  the  exogamous  rules  were  made  for  '' political" 
reasons. 

The  theories  of  Mr.  Howitt  and  Mr.  Spencer  differed 
from  each  other,  originally,  only  in  so  far  as  that  Mr. 
Spencer  supposes  animal-named  magical  societies  (now 
totemic)  to  have  arisen  before  man  regulated  marriage 
in  any  way ;  whereas  this  conception  of  animal-named 
groups  not  bound  by  totemic  restrictions  on  marriage 
had  not  occurred  to  Mr.  Howitt  or  any  other  inquirer, 
except  Mr.  J.  G.  Frazer,  who  evolved  it  independently. 
Mr.  Spencer's  theory  in  this  matter  rests  entirely  on  his 
discovery,  among  the  Arunta,  in  Central  Australia,  of 
totems  marking  magical  societies,  but  not  regulating 
marriage,  and  on  his  inference  that,  in  the  beginning, 
animal-named  groups  were  everywhere  mere  magical 
societies.  To  work  co-operative  magic  was  their  primary 
function.  To  that  opinion  Mr.  Howitt  has  now  come 
in,  and  he  adds  that  ''the  division  of  the  tribe"  (into 
the  two  primary  exogamous  moieties  or  phratries,  or 
"  classes  ")  "  was  made  with  intent  to  regulate  the  rela- 
tions  of  the  sexes."  ^  On  one  point,  we  repeat,  namely, 
why  the  division  was  made,  Mr.  Spencer  utters  no  certain 
sound,  nor  does  Mr.  Howitt  explicitly  tell  us  for  what 

^  NoHv  Tribes  0/ South-East  Austmlta,  p.  89. 


THE   PROPHET   MEDICINE  MAN  37 

reason  sexual  relations,  hitherto  unregulated,  were  sup- 
posed to  need  regulation.  He  conceives  that  there  is 
**2L  widespread  belief  in  the  supernatural  origin  of  the 
practice/'  but  that  explains  nothing.^ 

Thus  Mr.  Howitt  postulates  the  existence  of  a 
"  tribe/'  divided  into  animal-named  magical  societies,  and 
promiscuous.  The  tribe  has  '*  medicine  men "  who  see 
visions.  One  of  these  men,  conceiving,  no  one  knows 
why,  that  it  would  be  an  excellent  thing  to  regulate  the 
relations  of  the  sexes,  announces  to  his  fellow-men  that 
he  has  received  from  a  supernatural  being  a  command 
to  do  so.  If  they  approve,  they  declare  the  supernatural 
message  '*  to  the  assembled  headmen  at  one  of  the  cere- 
monial meetings,"  the  tribe  obeys,  and  divides  itself 
into  the  two  primary  exogamous  moieties  or  phratries.^ 
Mr.  Howitt  thus  postulates  the  existence  of  the 
organised  tribe,  with  its  prophets,  its  "  All  Father " 
(such  as  Daramulun),  its  magical  societies,  its  recog- 
nised headmen,  and  its  public  meetings  for  ceremonial 
and  legislation,  all  in  full  swing,  before  the  relations  of 
the  sexes  are  in  any  way  regulated. 

On  reflection,  Mr.  Howitt  may  find  difficulties  in 
this  postulate.  Meanwhile,  we  ask  what  made  the  very 
original  medicine  man,  the  Moses  of  the  tribe,  think  of 
the  new  and  drastic  command  which  he  brought  down 
from  the  local  Sinai?  Why  did  this  thinker  suppose 
that  the  relations  of  the  sexes  ought  to  be  regulated  ? 
Perhaps  the  idea  was  the  inspiration  of  a  dream. 
Mr.  Spencer,  acquainted  chiefly  with  tribes  who  have 
no  All  Father,  has  not  advanced  this  theory. 

1  Native  Tribes  ef  South-East  Australia^  p.  9a 

*  Lo€,  cU.    Mr.  Howitt  says  "classes,"  but  we  adhere   to  the  term 
"phiatries." 


jS  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

The  reasons  given  for  supposing  that  the  ''tribe" 
was  onginstlly  promiscuous  are  partly  based  (a)  on  the 
actual  condition  as  regards  individual  marriage  of  some 
Australian  tribes,  mainly  Dieri  and  Urabunna,  with 
their  congeners.  These  tribes,  it  is  argued,  are  now  no 
longer  absolutely  promiscuous,  but  men  and  women  are 
divided  into  intermarriageable  sets,  so  that  all  women 
of  a  certain  status  in  Emu  phratry  are,  or  their  pre- 
decessors have  been,  actual  wives  of  all  men  of  the 
corresponding  status  in  Kangaroo  phratry.  The  only 
bar  to  absolute  promiscuity  is  that  of  the  phratries 
(established  by  legislation  on  this  theory),  and  of  certain 
by-laws,  of  relatively  recent  institution.  The  names 
for  human  relationships  (father,  mother,  son,  daughter, 
brother,  sister),  again,  (d)  are,  it  is  argued,  such  as 
"group  marriage,"  and  *' group  marriage'*  alane^  would 
inevitably  produce.  All  women  of  a  certain  status  are  my 
**  mothers,"  all  men  of  a  certain  status  are  my  "fathers," 
all  women  of  another  status  are  my  "sisters,"  all  of 
another  are  my  "  wives,"  and  so  on.  Thus  Mr.  Spencer 
IS  able  to  say  that  "  individual  marriage  does  not  exist 
Cither  in  name  or  in  practice  in  the  Urabunna  tribe  "  at 
ihc  i>reHcat  day.* 

rhis,  howe\*er,  does  not  mean  that  among  many 
s^uvh  tiibcH  a  man  is  not  betrothed  to  a  special  woman, 
,4JiKl  vKhn^  not  marry  that  woman,  with  certain  filthy 
uiiiialvuv  "lites,"  contravening  the  usual  rules  of  inter- 
^ouiw**  Nvn  is  it  denied  that  such  man  and  wife 
^l«^^;luull\  ^vhabiti  and  that  the  man,  by  hunting  and 
ifcNi^-sk^%  ^Msk\Klvj*  tor  the  wife  and  all  her  children,  and 
y^vV|^a.>\v\x  thgui  AJi  his  own, 

V.*««K«  .>  \^tu»\k*  iustfM/ia,  Spencer  and  Gillen,  p.  63. 
'  \\4^^  -^uU  V^Uiv4«j.  |>(x  9a-9S. 


PIRAUNGARU  39 

It  is  meant  that  each  man  has  only  a  certain  set  of 
nubile  women  open  to  him  {Nupa^  or  Noa^  or  Unawa\ 
and  that  out  of  these,  in  addition  to  his  allotted  bride, 
an  uncertain  number  of  women  are  assigned  to  him 
and  to  others,  mainly  at  tribal  festivals,  as  paramotu-s 
{Pirauru  or  Piraungaru\  by  their  elder  brothers,  or 
the  heads  of  totem  kins,  or  the  seniors  of  the  Urabunna 
tribe.  ''  This  relationship  is  usually  established  at  times 
when  considerable  numbers  of  the  tribe  are  gathered 
together  to  perform  important  ceremonies."^  One 
woman  may,  on  di£Ferent  occasions,  be  allotted  as 
Piraungaru  to  different  men,  one  man  to  diflFerent 
women.  Occasionally,  though  rarely,  the  regular 
husband  (he  who  marries  the  wife  by  filthy  ** rites") 
resists  the  allotting  of  his  wife  to  another  man,  and  then 
"there  is  a  fight." 

The  question  is,  does  this  Urabunna  custom  of 
Piraungaru  (the  existence  of  which  in  some  tribes  is 
not  denied)  represent  a  survival  of  a  primary  stage  in 
which  all  men  of  a  certain  social  and  phratriac  status 
were  all  alike  husbands  to  all  women  of  the  corre- 
sponding status  (group,  or  rather  status^  marriage) ;  and 
was  that^  in  turn,  a  survival  of  the  anarchy  of  the  horde, 
in  which  there  were  no  grades  at  all,  but  anarchic 
promiscuity  ? 

That  is  the  opinion  of  believers  in  "the  primary 
undivided  horde,"  and  in  "group  marriage,"  or  rather 
"status  marriage."  ^  -^ 

Or  is  this  Piraungaru  custom,  "as  we  think  more 
probable,  an  organised  and  circumscribed  and  isolated 
legalisation,  among  a  few  tribes,  of  the  utterly  unbridled 
license  practised  by  many  savages  on  festive  occasions 

^  Natives  of  Central  Australia,  Spencer  and  Gillen,  p.  63. 


^. 


40  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

corresponding  to  the  Persian  feast  of  the  Sacaea,  and  to 
the  Roman  Saturnalia  ?  ^ 

The  Piraungaru  allotments  are  made,  as  a  rule,  at 
great  licentious  meetings,  but  among  the  Urabunna, 
though  they  break  the  rules  of  individual  marriage,  they 
do  not  break  the  tribal  rules  of  incest  By  these  rules 
the  Piraungaru  men  and  women  must  be  legal  inter- 
marriageable  persons  [Nupd) ;  their  regulated  paramour- 
ship  is  not,  by  tribal  law,  what  we,  or  the  natives,  deem 
''  incestuous."  On  the  other  hand,  at  Fijian  seasons  of 
license,  even  the  relationship  of  brother  and  sister — the 
most  sacred  of  all  to  a  savage — is  purposely  profaned. 
Brothers  and  sisters  are  '^  intentionally  coupled "  at  the 
feast  of  license  called  Nanga.  The  object  is  to  have 
''a  regular  burst,"  and  deliberately  violate  every  law. 
Men  and  women  ''publicly  practised  unmentionable 
abominations."' 

The  Fijians  are  infinitely  above  the  Urabunna  in 
civilisation,  being  an  agricultural  people.  Their  Nanga 
feast  is  also  called  Mbaki — ''  harvest"  Yet  the  Fijians, 
though  more  ciyilised,  far  exceed  the  license  of  the 
Piraungaru  custom  of  the  Urabunna,  not  only  per- 
mitting, but  enjoining,  the  extremest  form  of  incest 

The  Arunta,  again,  neighbours  of  the  Urabunna, 
though  said  to  have  more  of  ''  individual  marriage  "  than 
they,  in  seasons  of  license  go  much  beyond  the  Ura- 
bunna, though  not  so  far  as  the  Fijians.  Women,  at 
certain  large  meetings,  ''are  told  o£F  .  •  .  and  with  the 
exception  of  men  who  stand  in  the  relation  of  actual 
father,  brother,  or  sons,  they  are,  for  the  time  being, 

*  For  a  Urge  account  of  these  customs  see  Tki  Golden  Bought  second 
editioo. 

*  Fison,/.  A.  /.,  xiv.  p.  3& 


GRADES  OF  LICENSE  41 

common  property  to  all  the  men  present  on  the  corro- 
boree  ground."  Women  are  thus  handed  over  to  men 
"whom,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  they  may  not 
even  speak  to  or  go  near."  ^  Every  known  rule,  except 
that  which  forbids  the  closest  incest  as  understood  by 
ourselves,  is  deliberately  and  purposely  reversed  '  by  the 
Arunta  on  certain  occasions.  Another  example  will  be 
produced  later,  that  of  the  Dieri,  neighbours  of  the 
Urabunna. 

We  suggest,  then,  that  these  three  grades  of  license — 
the  Urabunna,  adulterous,  but  more  or  less  permanent, 
and  limited  by  rules  and  by  tribal  and  modern  laws  of 
incest;  the  Arunta,  not  permanent,  adulterous,  and 
tribally  incestuous,  limited  only  by  our  own  ideas  of 
the  worst  kinds  of  incest ;  and  the  Fijian,  not  per- 
manent, adulterous,  and  of  an  incestuous  character  not 
only  unlimited  by  laws,  but  rather  limited  by  the  desire 
to  break  the  most  sacred  laws — are  all  of  the  same 
kind.  They  are  not,  we  suggest,  survivals  of  "group 
marriage,"  or  of  a  period  of  perfect  promiscuity  in 
everyday  life,  though  that  they  commemorate  such  a 
fancied  period  is  the  Arunta  myth,  just  as  the  Roman 
myth  averred  that  the  Saturnalia  commemorated  the 
anarchy  of  the  Golden  Age. 

**  In  Saturn's  time 
Such  mixture  was  not  held  a  crime." 

The  Golden  Age  of  promiscuity  is,  of  course,  re- 
ported, not  in  an  historical  tradition  recording  a  fact, 
but  in  a  myth  invented  to  explain  the  feasts  of  license. 
Men  find  that  they  have  institutions,  they  argue  that 
they  must  once  have  been  without  institutions,  they 

*  Natives  of  Ctntral  Australia,  Spencer  ind  Gillen,  p.  97. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  III. 


42     THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

make  myths  about  ancestors  or  gods  who  introduced 
institutions,  they  invent  the  Golden  Age,  when  there 
were  none,  and,  on  occasion,  revert  for  a  day  or 
a  week  to  that  happy  ideal.  The  periods  of  license 
cannot  be  true  commemorative  functions,  continued 
in  pious  memory  of  a  time  of  anarchy  since  institutions 
began. 

But  of  the  three  types,  Urabunna,  Arunta,  Fijian, 
the  Urabunna,  except  in  its  degree  of  permanence,  is 
the  least  licentious,  least  invades  law,  and  it  is  a  curious 
question  why  incest  increases  at  these  feasts  as  culture 
advances,  up  to  a  certain  point  The  law  invaded  by 
the  Urabunna  Piraungaru  custom  is  not  the  tribal  law 
of  incest,  nor  the  modern  law  of  incest,  but  the  law  of 
the  sanctity  of  individual  marriage.  It  may  therefore  be 
argued  (as  against  my  own  opinion)  that  the  sanctity  of 
individual  marriage  is  still  merely  a  nascent  idea  among 
the  Urabunna,  an  idea  which  is  recent,  and  so  can  be 
set  aside  easily;  whereas  the  tribal  laws  of  incest  are 
strong  with  the  strength  of  immemorial  antiquity,  and 
therefore  must  have  already  existed  in  a  past  age  when 
there  was  no  individual  marriage  at  all.  On  this  show- 
ing we  have,  first,  the  communal  undivided  horde ;  next, 
the  horde  bisected  into  groups  which  must  not  marry 
within  each  other  (phratries),  though  why  this  arrange- 
ment was  made  and  submitted  to  nobody  can  guess  with 
any  plausibility.  By  this  time  all  females  of  phratry  A 
might  not  only  marry  any  man  of  phratry  B,  but  were, 
according  to  the  hypothesis,  by  theory  and  by  practice, 
all  wives  of  all  men  of  phratry  B.  Next,  as  to-day,  a 
man  of  B  married  a  woman  of  A,  with  or  without  the 
existing  offensive  rites,  but  his  tenure  of  her  is  still  so 
insecure  and  recent  that  it  is  set  aside,  to  a  great  extent. 


NAMES  OF  RELATIONSHIPS  43 

by  the  Piraungaru  or  Pirauru  custom,  itself  a  proof 
and  survival  of  ''group  marriage/'  and  of  communal 
promiscuity  in  the  past.  Such  is  the  argument  for 
"group  marriage/'  which  may  be  advanced  against  my 
opinion,  or  thus,  if  I  did  not  hold  my  opinion,  I  would 
state  the  argument. 

This  licentious  custom,  whether  called  Piraungaru  or 
by  other  names,  is,  with  the  tribal  names  for  human 
relationships,  the  only  basis  of  the  belief  in  the  primal 
promiscuous  horde.  Now,  as  to  these  names  of  relation- 
ships, we  may  repeat  the  adverse  arguments  already 
advanced  by  us  in  Social  Origins^  pp.  99-103.  "What- 
ever the  original  sense  of  the  names,  they  all  now  denote 
seniority  and  customary  legal  status  in  the  tribe,  with 
the  reciprocal  duties,  rights,  and  avoidances.  .  .  .  The 
friends  of  group  and  communal  marriage  keep  uncon- 
sciously forgetting,  at  this  point  of  their  argument,  that 
our  ideas  of  sister,  brother,  father,  mother,  and  so  on, 
have  nothing  to  do  (as  they  tell  us  at  certain  other  points 
of  their  argument)  with  the  native  terms,  which  include^ 
indeed,  but  do  not  denote  these  relationships  as  under- 
stood by  us.  .  .  .  We  cannot  say  '  our  word  "  son  "  must 
not  be  thought  of  when  we  try  to  understand  the  native 
term  of  relationship  which  includes  sons — ^in  our  sense,' 
and  next  aver  that  '  sons,  in  our  sense,  are  regarded  [or 
spoken  of]  as  real  sons  of  the  group,  not  of  the  indi- 
vidual, because  of  a  past  [or  present]  stage  of  promis- 
cuity which  made  real  paternity  undiscoverable.' " 

Manifestly  there  lurks  a  fallacy  in  alternately  using 
''  sons,"  for  example,  in  our  sense,  and  then  in  the  tribal 
sense,  which  includes  both  fatherhood,  or  sonship,  in  our 
sense,  and  also  tribal  status  and  duties.  "The  terms,  in 
addition  to  their  usual  and  generally  accepted  signification 


44  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

of  relationship  by  blood,  express  a  class  or  group  relation 
quite  independent  of  it"  ^ 

Thus  the  tribal  names  may  result  from  an  expanded 
use  of  earlier  names  of  blood  relationship,  or  names  of 
tribal  status  may  now  be  applied  to  include  persons  who 
are  within  degrees  of  blood  relationship.  In  the  latter 
case,  how  do  we  know  that  a  tribe  with  its  degrees  of 
status  is  primitive  ?  Starcke  thinks  that  Mr.  Morgan's 
use  of  terms  of  relationship  as  proof  of  '^  communal 
marriage"  is  <<a  wild  dream,  if  not  the  delirium  of 
fever."  "The  nomenclature  was  in  every  respect  the 
faithful  reflection  of  the  juridical  relations  which  arose 
between  the  nearest  kinsfolk  of  each  tribe.  Individuals 
who  were,  according  to  the  legal  point  of  view,  on  the 
same  level  with  the  speaker,  received  the  same  desig- 
nation. The  other  categories  of  kinship  were  formally 
developed  out  of  this  standpoint."  The  system  of  names 
for  relationships  "affords  no  warrant "  for  Mr.  Morgan's 
theory  of  primitive  promiscuity.* 

Similar  arguments  against  inferring  collective  mar- 
riage in  the  past  from  existing  tribal  terms  of  relation- 
ship are  urged  by  Dr.  Durkheim.*  He  writes,  taking 
an  American  case  of  names  of  relationship,  as  against 
Professor  Kohler:  "We  see  that  the  (Choctaw)  word 
Inoha  (mother)  applies  indifferently  to  all  the  women 
of  my  mother's  group,  from  the  oldest  to  the  youngest 
The  term  thus  defines  its  own  meaning :  it  applies  to 
all  the  women  of  the  family  (or  clan  ?)  into  which  my 
father  has  married.  Doubtless  it  is  rather  hard  to 
understand  how  the  same  term  can  apply  to  so  many 

^  Roth,  N.W,C.  Quufuland Abongimis^  p.  56. 

*  Starcke,  Tkd  Primitive  Famiiy^  p.  207. 

*  VAnnh  Socioiogiqtu^  i.  pp.  313-316. 


RELATIONSHIP  IS  NOT  CONSANGUINITY    45 

di£Ferent  people.  But  certain  it  is,  that  the  word  cannot 
awake,  in  men's  minds,  any  idea  of  descent^  in  the  usual 
sense  of  the  word.  For  a  man  cannot  seriously  regard 
his  second  cousin  as  his  mother,  even  virtual.  The 
vocabulaty  of  relationships  must  therefore  express  something 
other  than  relations  of  consanguinity^  properly  so-called.  .  .  . 
Relationship  and  consanguinity  are  very  different  things 
•  .  •  relationship  being  essentially  constituted  by  certain 
legal  and  moral  obligations,  which  society  imposes  on 
certain  individuals/'  ^ 

The  whole  passage  should  be  read,  but  its  sense  is 
that  which  I  have  already  tried  to  express;  and  Dr. 
Durkheim  says,  ''The  hypothesis  of  collective  marriage 
has  never  been  more  than  an  ultima  ratio'*  (a  last 
resource),  ''intended  to  enable  us  to  envisage  these 
strange  customs ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  overlook  all 
the  difficulties  which  it  raises." 

An  analogous  explanation  of  the  wide  use  of  certain 
terms  of  relationship  has  been  given  by  Dr.  Fison,  of 
whom  Mr.  Howitt  writes,  "  Much  of  what  I  have  done 
is  equally  his."  '  Dr.  Fison  says,  "  All  men  of  the  same 
generation  who  bear  the  same  totem  are  tribally  brothers, 
though  they  may  belong  to  di£Ferent  and  widely  separated 
tribes.  Here  we  find  an  explanation  of  certain  apparently 
anomalous  terms  of  relationship.  Thus,  in  some  tribes 
the  paternal  grandson  and  his  grandfather  call  one 
another  'elder  brother'  and  'younger  brother'  respec- 
tively. These  persons  are  of  the  same  totem."  •  "  Many 
other  designations"  in  Mr.  Morgan's  Tables  of  Terms 
of  Relationship  "admit  of  a  similar  solution."^    The 

*  VAnnU  Sociohgique^  i  p.  315. 

*  Native  Tribes  of  Scut k- East  Australia^  ziv. 

'  Can  Dr.  Fison  mean  of  the  same  matrimonial  dass? 
^  Kamilaroi  and  Kumai^  pp.  166,  167. 


46     THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

terms  do  not  denote  degrees*  of  blood  relationship,  but 
of  brotherhood  in  the  totem  (or  phratry,  or  matrimonial 
class).  It  is  so,  too,  with  the  Choctaw  term  for  Mother. 
Every  one  knows  who  his  mother,  in  our  sense,  is: 
the  Choctaw  term  denotes  a  tribal  status. 

If  it  be  said  that,  because  a  man  calls  his  wife  his 
Noa^  and  also  calls  all  women  whom  he  might  have 
married  his  Noa^  therefore  all  these  women,  in  past 
times,  would  have  been  his  wives ;  it  might  as  well  be 
said  that  all  the  women  whom  he  calls  ''  mother  "  would, 
in  times  past,  have  collaborated  in  giving  birth  to  him. 
As  far  as  these  terms  indicate  relationship,  ''a  man  is 
the  younger  brother  of  his  maternal  grandmother,"  and 
the  maternal  grandfather  of  his  second  cousin!^  The 
terms  do  not  denote  relationship  in  blood,  clearly,  but 
something  quite  different 

The  custom  of  Piraungaru^  or  Pirrauru^  and  cases 
of  license  at  festivals,  and  the  names  for  tribal  relations, 
are,  we  repeat,  the  only  arguments  in  favour  of  the 
theory  of  the  communal  horde.'  We  have  shown  that 
the  terms  of  relationship  do  not  necessarily  help  the 
theory.  That  theory,  again,  is  invalidated  by  its  in- 
ability to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  rules,  forbidding 
marriage  between  persons  of  the  same  phratry  (for  it 
does  not  tell  us  why  the  original  medicine  man  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  regulations),  or  even  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  the  phratriac  divisions. 

But  why,  on  our  system,  can  the  Piraungaru  custom 
break  the  rule  of  individual  marriage  more  easily  than 
the  law  prohibiting  incest  ?    Why  it  can  do  so  on  the 

^  Native  Raca  of  South-East  AuitraUa^  p.  163.  Pointed  ont  by  Mr.  N.  W. 
Thomas. 

*  The  putidpadon  of  many  men  in  ^<tjus  prinuu  noctU  is  open  to  varioiu 
explanations. 


HOW  PIRAUNGARU   IS  POSSIBLE  47 

theory  of  pristine  promiscuity  we  have  explained  (p.  41, 
supra). 

We  reply  that  individual  marriage  has  not,  among 
savages,  any  ''religious"  sanction;  it  is  protected  by 
no  form  of  the  phratry  or  totem  tabu ;  by  no  god,  such 
as  Hymen ;  but  rests,  as  from  the  first  it  rested,  on  the 
character  and  strength  of  the  possessor  of  the  woman 
or  women,  and  falls  into  abeyance  if  he  does  not  choose 
to  exert  it  If  the  males  of  the  Urabunna  have  so  far 
departed  from  the  natural  animal  instincts  as  usually 
(with  exceptions)  to  prefer  to  relax  their  tenure  of 
women,  being  tempted  by  the  bribe  of  a  legalised  change 
of  partners  all  round,  they  exhibit,  not  a  primitive,  but 
a  rather  advanced  type  of  human  nature.  The  moral 
poet  sings : — 

*'  Of  Whist  or  CrMage  mark  the  amusing  Game, 
The  Partners  changing,  but  the  Sport  the  same. 
Then  see  one  Man  with  one  unceasing  Wife, 
Play  the  long  Rubber  of  connubial  Life.**  ^ 

This  is  the ''  platform "  of  the  Urabunna  and  Dieri, 
as  it  is  of  the  old  Cicisbeism  in  Italy,  and  of  a  section 
of  modern  '^  smart  society,"  especially  at  the  end  of  the 
ancien  rigime  in  France.  Man  may  fall  into  this  way 
of  thinking,  just  as,  in  Greece,  he  actually  legalised 
unnatural  passions  by  a  ceremony  of  union.  ''That 
one  practice,  in  many  countries,  became  systematised," 
as  Mr.  ].  F.  McLennan  wrote  to  Mr.  Darwin.< 

This  is  not  the  only  example  of  a  legalised  aberration 
from  nature,  or  from  second  nature.  Abhorrence  of 
incest  has  become  a  law  of  second  nature,  among 
savage  as  among  civilised  men.    But   Dr.  Durkheim 

^  Poitry  of  thi  AntijacoHn. 

*  Studies  in  Aneunt  History^  ii  p.  52. 


48  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

publishes  a  long  list  of  legalised  aberrations  from  the 
laws  of  incest  among  Hebrews,  Arabs,  Phoenicians, 
Greeks,  Slavonic  peoples,  Medes,  Persians,  Egyptians, 
Cambodians,  and  Peruvians.^  If  these  things,  these 
monstrous  aberrations,  can  be  legalised  'Mn  the  green 
tree,"  why  should  not  jealousy  fall  into  a  kind  of 
legalised  abeyance  among  the  Urabunna,  under  the 
law  of  partner-shifting  ?  The  Piraungaru  custom  does 
not  prove  that  earliest  man  was  not  ferociously  jealous ; 
it  merely  shows  that  certain  tribes  have  reached  a  stage 
in  which  jealousy  is,  at  present,  more  or  less  suppressed 
in  favour  of  legalised  license. 

We  catch  the  Urabunna  and  Dieri  at  a  moment  of 
development  in  which  the  abandonment  of  strict  pos- 
session of  a  wife  is  compensated  for  by  a  legalised  system 
of  changing  partners,  enduring  after  the  feast  of  license 
is  over.  But  even  so,  a  man  is  responsible,  as  father, 
for  the  children  of  his  actual  wife,  not  for  the  children 
of  his  Piraungaru  paramours.  For  these  their  actual 
husbands  {Tippa  Malku)  are  responsible. 

Mr.  Howitt  says,  in  his  earlier  account  of  this  institu- 
tion, that  among  the  Dieri,  neighbours  of  the  Urabunna, 
the  men  and  women  who  are  made  Pirauru  are  not 
consulted.  The  heads  of  the  tribe  do  not  ask  whether 
they  fancy  each  other  or  not.  ''The  time  is  one  of 
festivity,  feasting,  and  amusement,"  only  too  obviously  1 
"Dancing  is  carried  on."  "A  man  can  always  exercise 
marital  rights  towards  his  Pirauru,  if  they  meet  when 
her  Naa  (real  husband)  is  absent,  but  he  cannot  take  her 
away  from  him  unless  by  his  consent,"  except  at  the 
feasts.  But  the  husband  usually  consents.  "In  spite 
of  all  this  arrangement,  most  of  the  quarrels  among  the 

^  VAnnU  Sociohgique^  i.  pp.  38,  39,  62. 


THE  DIERI   SYSTEM  49 

Dieri  arise  out  of  this  Pirauru  practice.  ..."  A  son 
or  daughter  regards  the  real  husband  {Noti)  of  his 
mother  as  his  Apiri  Murla^  or  ''real  father";  his 
mother's  Pirauru  is  only  his  Apiri  IVaka,  or  "little 
father."  At  certain  feasts  of  license,  such  as  intertribal 
marriages, ''  no  jealous  feeling  is  allowed  under  penalty 
of  strangling,  but  it  crops  up  afterwards,  and  occasions 
many  bloody  affrays."  ^  Thus  jealousy  is  not  easily  kept 
in  abeyance  by  customary  law. 

The  idea  of  such  a  change  of  partners  is  human,  not 
animal,  and  the  more  of  a  brute  the  ancestor  of  man 
was  the  less  could  he  dream,  in  times  truly  primitive,  of 
Piraungaru  as  a  permanent  arrangement.  Men,  in  a  few 
tribes,  declined  into  it,  and  are  capable  of  passing  out 
of  it,  like  the  Urabunna  or  Dieri  man,  who  either  retains 
so  much  of  the  animal,  or  is  rising  so  far  towards  the 
Homeric  standard,  as  to  fight  rather  than  let  his  wife 
be  allotted  to  another  man,  or  at  least  to  thump  that 
other  man  afterwards. 

The  Dieri  case  of  the  feast  of  license,  just  mentioned, 
is  notable.  ''The  various  Piraurus  (paramours)  are 
allotted  to  each  other  by  the  great  council  of  the  tribe, 
after  which  their  names  are  formally  announced  to  the 
assembled  people  on  the  evening  of  the  ceremony  of 
circumcision,  during  which  there  is  for  a  time  a  general 
license  permitted  between  all  those  who  have  been  thus 
allotted  to  each  other."  But  persons  of  the  same  totem 
among  the  Dieri  may  not  be  Piraurus  to  each  other, 
nor  may  near  relations  as  we  reckon  kinship,  including 
cousins  on  both  sides. 

In  this  arrangement  Mr.  Howitt  sees  "a  form  of 
group  marriage,"  while  I   see  tribe-regulated   license, 

^J,  A.  /.,  pp.  56-60^  August  189a 

D 


50  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

certainly  much  less  lawless  than  that  of  the  more  ad- 
vanced Fijians  or  the  Arunta.  Mr.  Howitt  did  not  state 
that  the  Pirauru  or  Piraungaru  unions  are  preceded  (as 
marriage  is)  by  any  ceremony,  unless  the  reading  the 
banns,  so  to  speak,  by  public  proclamation  among  the 
Dieri  is  a  ceremony.^  Now  he  has  discovered  a  cere- 
mony as  symbolic  as  our  wedding  ring  (1904). 

Little  light,  if  any,  is  thrown  on  these  customs  of 
legalised  license  by  philology.  Mr.  Howitt  thought  that 
Pirauru  may  be  derived  from  Ani,  "the  moon,"  and 
Uru^  "circular."  The  tribal  feasts  of  license  are  held 
at  the  full  moon,  but  I  am  not  aware  that,  by  the  natives, 
people  are  deemed  peculiarly  "moonstruck,"  or  lunatic, 
at  that  season.  If  Urabunna  Piraungaru  is  linguistically 
connected  with  Dieri  Pirauru^Maitn  both  Piraungaru  and 
Pirauru  may  mean  " Full  Mooners."  "Thy  full  moons 
and  thy  festivals  are  an  abomination  to  me  ! "  > 

Among  the  Dieri,  "  a  woman  becomes  the  Noa  of  a 
man  most  frequently  by  being  betrothed  to  him  when 
she  is  a  mere  infant.  ...  In  certain  cases  she  is  given 
by  the  Great  Council,  as  a  reward  for  some  meritorious 
act  on  his  part"    "  None  but  the  brave  deserve  the  fair/' 

1  Howitt,/.  A.  /.,  Angnst  1890,  ppi  55-58. 

*  What  the  Dieri  call  Piramm  (legalised  panunoor)  the  adjacent  Knnaxi- 
dafauri  tribe  call  Dilpa  Mali.  In  thu  tribe  the  individual  husband  or  indi- 
vidual wile  (that  is,  the  real  wife  or  husband)  is  styled  Nubaia^  in  Dieri  Noa^ 
in  Urabunna  Nupa.  Husband's  brother,  sister's  husband,  wife's  sister,  and 
brother's  wife  are  all  Nubaia  KodimaU  in  Kunandabnri,  and  are  all  Noa  in 
Dieri.  What  Dilpa  MaH  (legalised  paramour,  or  '*  accessory  wife  or  hus- 
band ")  means  in  Kunandaburi  Mr.  Howitt  does  not  know.  But  he  learns 
that  Kodi  Mali  (applied  to  Pirauru)  means  *'  net  Nubaia,"  that  is,  "  mt  legal 
individual  husband  or  wife."  If  we  knew  what  Dilpa  means  in  Dilpa  MaH 
(legalised  paramour  of  either  sex),  we  should  know  more  than  we  are  apt  to 
do  in  the  present  state  of  Australian  philology. 

At  Port  Linoobi  a  man  calls  his  own  wife  Yung  Ara^  that  of  his  brother 
JCartiti  (Thmx.  PhU.  Soc,  Vie,,  v.  180).  What  do  these  words  mean?— 
Report  o/Regmts  ofSmiihsoman  InstihUo^  1883,  pp.  804-806. 


PIRAUNGARU   MODIFIES  MARRIAGE       51 

and  this  is  **  individual  marriage/'  though  the  woman  who 
is  wedded  to  one  man  may  be  legally  allotted  as  Full 
Mooner,  or  Pirauru^  to  several.  "  The  right  of  the  Noa 
overrides  that  of  the  Pirauru.  Thus  a  man  cannot  claim 
a  woman  who  is  Pirauru  to  him  when  her  Noa  is  present  in 
the  camp,  excepting  by  his  consent"  The  husband  gene- 
rally yields,  he  shares  equivalent  privileges.  ^*  Such  cases, 
however,  are  the  frequent  causes  of  jealousies  and  fights."  ^ 

This  evidence  does  not  seem,  on  the  whole,  to  force 
upon  us  the  conclusion  that  the  Urabunna  Piraungaru 
custom,  or  any  of  these  customs,  any  more  than  the 
custom  of  polyandry,  or  of  legalised  incest  in  higher 
societies,  is  a  survival  of  ''group  marriage" — all  men 
of  certain  social  grades  being  actual  husbands  of  all 
women  of  the  corresponding  grades — ^while  again  thai 
is  a  survival  of  gradeless  promiscuity.  We  shall  dis- 
prove that  theory.  Rather,  the  Piraungaru  custom 
appears  to  be  a  limited  concession  to  the  taste,  certainly 
a  human  taste,  for  partner-changing — which  can  only 
manifest  itself  where  regular  partnerships  already  exist. 
Jealousy  among  these  tribes  is  in  a  state  of  modified 
abeyance  :  like  nature  herself,  and  second  nature,  where, 
among  civilised  peoples,  things  unnatural,  or  contrary  to 
the  horror  of  incest,  have  been  systematically  legalised. 

I  have  so  far  given  Mr.  Howitf  s  account  of  Pirrauru 
(the  name  is  now  so  written  by  him)  among  the  Dieri, 
as  it  appeared  in  his  works,  prior  to  1904.  In  that  year 
he  published  his  Native  Tribes  of  South-East  Australia, 
which  contains  additional  details  of  essential  importance 
(pp.   179-187).    A  woman  becomes   Tippa  Malkuf  or 

1  lUpart  ofR^fftnts  rf  Smithsonian  InstituU,  1883,  p.  807. 
*  Tippa,  in  one  tongue,  Malku  in  another,  denote  the  tasMl  which  is  a 
man's  full  dress  suit 


53  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

affianced/  to  one  man  ovA^^bef^e  she  becomes /'imsfifni, 
or  what  Mn  Howitt  calls  a  "group  wife."  A  ''group 
wife,"  I  think,  no  woman  becomes.  She  is  never  the 
Pirrauru  of  all  the  men  who  are  Noa  to  her,  that  is, 
intermarriageable  with  her.  She  is  merely  later  allotted, 
after  a  syml>olic  ceremony,  as  a  Pirrauru  to  one  or  more 
men,  who  are  Noa  to  her.  At  first,  while  a  child,  or  at 
least  while  a  maiden,  she  is  betrothed  (there  are  varieties 
of  modes)  to  one  individual  male.  She  may  ask  her 
husband  to  let  her  take  on  another  man  as  Pirrauru; 
"  should  he  refuse  to  do  this  she  must  put  up  with  it." 
If  he  consents,  other  men  make  two  adjacent  ridges  of 
sand,  and  level  them  into  one  larger  ridge,  while  a  man, 
usually  the  selected  lover,  pours  sand  from  the  ridge 
over  the  upper  part  of  his  thighs,  "  buries  the  Pirrauru  in 
the  sand."  (The  phrase  does  not  suggest  that  Pirrauru 
means  "  Full  Mooners.")  This  is  the  Kandri  ceremony, 
it  is  performed  when  men  swop  wives  (exchange  their 
Noa  as  Pirraurus\  and  also  when  ''the  whole  of  the 
marriageable  or  married  people,  even  those  who  are 
already  Pirrauru^  are  reallotted^**  a  term  which  suggests 
the  temporary  character  of  the  unions. 

I  am  ready  to  allow  that  the  Kandri  ceremony,  a 
symbol  of  recognised  union,  like  our  wedding  ring,  or 
the  exchanged  garlands  of  the  Indian  Ghandarva  rite, 

^  Mr.  Howitt  tays  that  the  pair  are  Tippa  Malku  "  for  the  time  being  " 
(p-  I79)t  though  the  association  seems  to  be  permanent.  May  girk  THppa 
Malku — "  sealed  "  to  a  man — have  relations  with  other  men  before  their  actual 
marriage,  and  with  what  men  ?  We  are  not  told,  but  a  girl  cannot  be  a 
Pirrmmru  before  she  is  Tippa  Malku,  If  Pirrauru  *'  arises  through  the 
exchange  by  brothers  of  their  wives"  (p.  i8i),  how  can  an  unmarried  man 
who  has  no  wife  become  a  Pirrauru  t  He  does.  When  Pirrauru  people 
are  "  re-ailotted  "  (p.  182),  does  the  old  connection  persist,  or  is  it  broken,  or 
is  it  merely  in  being  for  the  festive  occasion  ?  How  does  the  jealousy  of  the 
Pirrauru,  which  is  great,  like  the  change  ?  These  questions,  and  many  more, 
are  asked  by  Mr.  N.  W.  Thomas. 


PIRRAURU   MODIFIES  ACTUAL  WEDLOCK    53 

constitutes^  in  a  sense,  marriage,  or  a  qualified  union 
recognised  by  public  opinion.  But  it  is  a  form  of  union 
which  is  arranged  subsequent  to  the  Tippa  Malku  cere- 
mony of  permanent  betrothal  and  wedlock.  Moreover, 
it  is,  without  a  shadow  of  doubt,  subsequent  in  time  and 
in  evolution  to  the  '^  specialising  "  of  one  woman  to  one 
man  in  the  Tippa  Malku  arrangement  That  arrange- 
ment is  demonstrably  more  primitive  than  Pirrauru^  for 
Pirrauru  is  unthinkable,  except  as  a  later  (and  isolated) 
custom  in  modification  of  Tippa  Malku. 

This  can  easily  be  proved.  On  Mr.  Howitt's  theory, 
"group  marriage"  (I  prefer  to  say  "status  marriage '') 
came  next  after  promiscuity.  All  persons  legally  inter- 
marriageable  {Nod)^  under  phratry  law,  were  originally, 
he  holds,  ipso  facto^  married.  Consequently  the  Kandri 
custom  could  not  make  them  more  married  than  they 
then  actually  were.  In  no  conceivable  way  could  it 
widen  the  area  of  their  matrimonial  comforts,  unless  it 
enabled  them  to  enjoy  partners  who  were  not  Noa^  not 
legally  intermarriageable  with  them.  But  this  the  Kandri 
ceremony  does  not  do.  All  that  it  does  is  to  permit 
certain  persons  who  are  already  Tippa  Malku  (wedded) 
to  each  other,  to  acquire  legal  paramours  in  certain 
other  wedded  or  Tippa  Malku  women,  and  in  men 
either  married  or  bachelors.  Thus,  except  as  a  legalised 
modification  of  individual  Tippa  Malku^  Pirrauru  is  im- 
possible, and  its  existence  is  unthinkable.^ 

1  Will  any  one  say,  originally  all  Noa  people  were  actual  husbands  and 
wires  to  each  other  ?  Then  the  Kandri  ceremony  and  Pirrauru  were  devised 
to  limit  Tom,  Dick,  and  Harry,  &c.,  to  Jane,  Mary,  and  Susan,  &c.,  all  these 
men  being  PirraurH  to  all  diese  women,  and  viet  vena.  Next,  Tippa 
Malku  was  devised,  limiting  Jane  to  Tom,  but  Pirrauru  was  retained,  to 
modify  that  limitation.  Anybody  is  welcome  to  this  mode  of  making 
Pirrauru  logically  thinkable,  without  prior  Tippa  Malku:  if  he  thinks  that 
the  arrangement  is  logically  thinkable,  which  I  do  not 


54  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Pirrauru  is  a  modification  of  marriage  {Tippa  Malku), 
Tippa  Malku  is  not  a  modification  of  ''group  marriage." 
If  it  were,  a  Tippa  Malku  husband,  ''specialising"  (as 
Mr,  Howitt  says)  a  woman  to  himself,  would  need  to  ask 
the  leave  of  his  fellows,  who  are  Noa  to  his  intended 
fiande}  The  reverse  is  the  case.  A  man  cannot  take 
his  Pirrauru  woman  away  from  her  Tippa  Malku 
husband  "unless  by  his  consent,  excepting  at  certain 
ceremonial  times  " — ^feasts,  in  fact,  of  license.  Pirrauru 
secures  the  domestic  peace,  more  or  less,  of  the  seniors, 
by  providing  the  young  men  (who  otherwise  would  be 
wifeless  and  desperate)  with  legalised  lemans.  By  giving 
these  Pirrauru  "  in  commendation  "  to  the  young  men, 
older  men  increase  their  property  and  social  influence. 
What  do  the  Tippa  Malku  husbands  say  to  this  arrange- 
ment? 

As  for  "group"  marriage,  there  is  nothing  of  the 
kind;  no  group  marries  another  group,  the  Pirrauru 
literally  heap  hot  coals  on  each  other  if  they  suspect  that 
their  mate  is  taking  another  of  the  "group  "  as  Pirrauru. 
The  jealous,  at  feasts  of  license,  are  strangled  {Nulina). 
The  Rev.  Otto  Siebert,  a  missionary  among  the  Dieri, 
praises  Pirrauru  for  "its  earnestness  in  regard  to 
morality."  One  does  not  quite  see  that  hiring  out  one's 
paramours,  who  are  other  men's  wives,  to  a  third  set  of 
men  is  earnestly  moral,  or  that  jealousy,  checked  by 
strangling  in  public,  by  hot  coals  in  private,  is  edifying, 
but  Pirrauru  is  not  "  group  marriage."  No  pre-existing 
group  is  involved.  Pirrauru  may  (if  they  like  jealousy 
and  hot  coals)  live  together  in  a  group,  or  the  men  and 

^  Or  hb  seniors  would  have  to  ask  it  But  his  kin  could  not  pooess  the 
right  to  betroth  him  before  kinship  was.  recognised,  which,  before  marriage 
existed,  it  could  not  be. 


PIRRAURU   IS   ISOLATED  55 

women  may  often  live  far  remote  from  each  other,  and 
meet  only  at  bean-feasts. 

You  may  call  Pirrauru  a  form  of  "  marriage,"  if  you 
like,  but,  as  a  later  modification  of  a  prior  Tifipa  Malku 
wedlock,  it  cannot  be  cited  as  a  proof  of  a  yet  more 
pristine  status-marriage  of  all  male  to  all  female  inter- 
marriageable  persons,  which  supposed  state  of  affairs  is 
called  "group  marriage."^ 

If  Pirrauru  were  primitive,  it  might  be  looked  for 
among  these  southern  and  eastern  tribes  which,  with 
the  pristine  social  organisation  of  the  Urabunna  and 
their  congeners,  lack  the  more  recent  institutions  of 
circumcision,  subincision,  totemic  magic,  possess  the 
All  Father  belief,  but  not  the  belief  in  prehuman  pre- 
decessors, or,  at  least,  in  their  constant  reincarnation. 
(This  last  is  not  a  Dieri  belief.)  But  among  these 
primitive  south-east  tribes,  Pirrauru  is  no  more  found 
than  subincision.  Nor  is  it  found  among  the  Arunta 
and  the  northern  tribes.  It  is  an  isolated  "sport" 
among  the  Dieri,  Urabunna,  and  their  congeners.  Being 
thus  isolated,  Pirrauru  cannot  claim  to  be  a  necessary 
step  in  evolution  from  "group  marriage"  to  "individual 
marriage."  It  may,  however,  though  the  point  is  un- 
certain, prevail,  or  have  prevailed,  "  among  all  the  tribes 
between  Port  Lincoln  and  the  Yerkla-mining  at  Eucla," 
that  is,  wherever  the  Dieri  and  Urabunna  phratry  names, 
Matteri  and  Kararu^  exist.*  Having  identical  phratry 
names  (or  one  phratry  name  identical,  as  among  the 
Kunandaburi),  whether  by  borrowing  or  by  original 
community  of  language  and  institutions :  all  these  tribes 

^  I  h«Te  here  had  the  advantage  of  oting  a  MS.  note  by  Mr.  N.  W. 
Thomas. 

*  Naiiv  Tribu  of  S&utk-East  AuOralia,  p.  191. 


56  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

southward  to  the  sea  from  Lake  Eyre  may  possess,  or 
may  have  possessed,  Pirrauru. 

Among  the  most  pristine  of  all  tribes,  in  the  south  by 
east,  however,  Pirrauru  is  not  found.  When  we  reach 
the  Wiimbaio,  the  Geawe-gal,  the  Kuinmarbura,  the 
Wakelbura,  and  the  Narrang-ga,  we  find  no  Pirrauru. 
But  Mr.  Howitt  notes  other  practices  which  are  taken 
by  him  to  be  mere  rudimentary  survivals  of  ''group 
marriage/'  They  are  (i.)  exchange  of  wives  at  feasts  of 
marriage,  or  in  view  of  impending  misfortune,  as  when 
shipwrecked  mariners  break  into  the  stores,  and  are 
''working  at  the  rum  and  the  gin."  These  are  feasts 
of  license,  not  survivals  of  "group  marriage"  nor  of 
Pirrauru.  (ii.)  The  jus  primae  noctis^  enjoyed  by  men 
of  the  bridegroom's  totem.  This  is  not  marriage  at 
all,  nor  is  it  a  survival  of  Pirrauru.  (iii.)  Very  rare 
"saturnalia,"  "almost  promiscuous."  This  is  neither 
"  group  marriage  "  (being  almost  promiscuous  and  very 
rare)  nor  Pirrauru.  (iv.)  Seven  brothers  have  one  wife. 
This  is  adelphic  polyandry,  Mr.  Howitt  calls  it  "  group 
marriage."  (v.)  "  A  man  had  the  right  to  exchange  his 
wife  for  the  wife  of  another  man,  but  the  practice  was 
not  looked  upon  favourably  by  the  clan."  If  this  is 
"group  marriage"  (there  is  no  "group"  concerned) 
there  was  group  marriage  in  ancient  Rome.^  This,  I 
think,  is  all  that  Mr.  Howitt  has  to  show  for  "group 
marriage  "  and  Pirrauru  among  the  tribes  most  retentive 
of  primitive  usages. 

The  manner  in  which  Tippa  Malku  betrothals  are 
arranged  deserves  attention.  They  who  "give  this 
woman  away,"  and  they  who  give  away  her  bride- 
groom also,  are  the  brothers  of  the  mothers  of  the 

^  NaHm  Trides  ofSouth^Rast  Australia^  pp.  195,  217,  219,  224,  26a 


INVERTED  LOGIC  57 

pair,  or  the  mothers  themselves  may  arrange  the 
matter.^ 

Mr.  Howitt,  on  this  point,  observes  that,  if  the  past 
can  be  judged  of  by  the  present,  *'  I  should  say  that  the 
practice  of  betrothal,  which  is  universal  in  Australia, 
must  have  produced  a  feeling  of  individual  proprietary 
right  over  the  women  so  promised."  Manifestly  Mr. 
Howitt  is  putting  the  plough  before  the  oxen.  It  is 
because  certain  kinsfolk  have  an  acknowledged  '^  pro- 
prietary right"  over  the  woman  that  they  can  betroth 
her  to  a  man :  it  is  not  because  they  can  betroth  her 
to  a  man  that  they  have  ''a  feeling  of  individual  pro- 
prietary right  over  her."  I  give  my  coppers  away  to 
a  crossing-sweeper,  or  exchange  them  for  commodities, 
because  I  have  an  individual  proprietary  right  over 
these  coins.  I  have  not  acquired  the  feeling  of  indi- 
vidual proprietary  right  over  the  pence  by  dint  of 
observing  that  I  do  give  them  away  or  buy  things  with 
them. 

The  proprietary  rights  of  mothers,  maternal  uncles, 
or  any  other  kinsfolk  over  girls  must,  of  course,  have 
been  existing  and  generally  acknowledged  before  these 
kinsfolk  could  exercise  the  said  rights  of  giving  away. 
But,  in  a  promiscuous  horde,  before  marriage  existed, 
how  could  anybody  know  what  persons  had  proprietary 
rights  over  what  other  persons  ?  • 

Mr.  Howitt  here  adds  that  the  **  practice  of  betrothal 
.  .  ."  (or  perhaps  he  means  that  ''the  feeling  of  indi- 
vidual proprietary  right "  ?)  "  when  accentuated  by  the 
Ti^fa  Ma/ku  marriage,  must  also  tend  to  overthrow  the 
Pirrauru  marriage."  Of  course  we  see,  on  the  other 
hand,  and  have  proved,  that  if  there  were  no  Tifipa 

^  Natiui  Tribes  of  South^Bast  Australia^  pp.  177,  178.       *  Ibid.,  p.  2S3. 


58  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Malku  marriage  there  could  be  no  Pirrauru  to  over- 
throw. 

As  to  the  Pirrauru  or  Piraungaru  custom,  moreover, 
Mr.  Howitt  has  himself  candidly  observed  that,  on  his 
theory,  it ''  ought  rather  to  have  been  perpetuated  than 
abandoned  "  (so  it  is  abandoned)  '^  under  conditions  of 
environment"  (such  as  more  abundant  food)  ''which 
permitted  the  Pirrauru  group  to  remain  together  on 
one  spot,  instead  of  being  compelled  by  the  exigencies 
of  existence  to  separate  into  lesser  groups  having  the 
Noa  "  (or  regular)  *'  marriage."  *  So  Pirrauru  don't  live 
in  "groups" ! 

As  a  fact,  the  more  that  supplies,  in  some  regions,  as 
on  the  south  coast,  permit  relatively  large  groups  to 
coexist,  the  less  is  their  marital  license ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  less  favourable  the  conditions  of  supply 
(as  in  the  Barkinji  region),  the  less  do  we  hear  of  P/r- 
rauru,  or  anything  of  the  kind,  except  among  tribes  of 
the  Kiraru  and  Matteri  phratries.  For  these  reasons, 
Pirrauru  unions  appear  to  mark  an  isolated  moment 
in  culture,  not  to  be  a  survival  of  universal  pristine 
promiscuity.  They  are  almost  always  associated,  in 
their  inception,  with  seasons  of  frolic  and  lust,  and  with 
large  assemblages,  rather  than  with  the  usual  course  of 
everyday  existence. 

For  the  reasons  here  stated,  it  does  not  seem  that 
Australian  institutions  yield  any  evidence  for  primitive 
promiscuity. 

*  /.  A.  /.,  xiii.  p.  34. 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  ARUNTA  ANOMALY 

How  ooold  man,  if  promiscaoas,  cease  to  be  so?— Opinion  of  Mr.  Howitt — 
Ethical  training  in  groups  very  small,  by  reason  of  economic  conditions — 
likes  and  dislikes — ^Love  and  jealousy — Distinctions  and  restrictions — 
Origin  of  restrictions  not  explained  by  Professor  Spencer — His  account 
of  the  Arunta — ^Among  them  the  totem  does  not  regulate  marriage,  is 
not  ezogamons,  denotes  a  magical  society — Causes  of  this  unique  state 
of  things — Biale  descent:  doctrine  of  reincarnation,  belief  in  spirit- 
haunted  stone  ckuringa  nanja — Mr.  Spencer  thinks  Arunta  totemism 
pristine — This  opinion  contested  —  How  Arunta  totemism  ceased  to 
regulate  marriage— -Result  of  isolated  belief  in  ckuringa  naMjar-Con- 
tradictory  Arunta  myths — Arunta  totemism  impossible  im  tribes  with 
female  descent — Case  of  the  Urabunna — Origin  of  ckw^inga  nanja  belief 
—Sacred  stone  objects  in  New  South  Walesa-Present  Arunta  belief 
perhaps  based  on  myths  explanatory  of  stone  amulets  of  unknown 
meaning^Proof  that  the  more  northern  tribes  never  held  the  Arunta 
belief  in  ckuringa  woi^Vi— Traces  of  Arunta  ideas  among  the  Euahlayi 
— Possible  traces  of  a  belief  in  a  sky*dwelling  being  among  southern 
Arunta— Mr.  Gillen's  "great  Ulthaana  of  the  heavens  "—How  arose 
the  magic-wcwking  animal-named  Arunta  societies?— Not  found  in  the 
south-east — Mr.  Spencer's  theory  that  they  do  survive — Criticism  of  his 
evidence — Recapitulation — Arunta  totemism  not  primitive  but  modified. 

Next  we  have  to  ask  how,  granting  the  hypothesis  of 
the  promiscuous  horde,  man  ceased  to  be  promiscuous. 
It  will  be  seen  that,  on  a  theory  of  Mr.  Howitt's,  man 
was,  in  fact,  far  on  the  way  of  ceasing  to  be  promiscuous 
or  a  '' horde's  man,"  before  he  introduced  the  moral 
reform  of  bisecting  his  horde  into  phratries,  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  brother  with  sister  marriages. 
Till  unions  were  permanent,  and  kin  recognised,  things 
impossible  in  a  state  of  promiscuity,  nobody  could 
dream  of  forbidding  brother  and  sister  marriage,  because 


6o  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

nobody  could  know  who  was  brother  or  sister  to  whom. 
Now,  Mr.  Howitt  does  indicate  a  way  in  which  man 
might  cease  to  be  promiscuous,  before  any  sage  in- 
vented the  system  of  exogamous  phratries. 

He  writes,!  « i  start  .  •  .  from  the  assumption  that 
there  was  once  an  undivided  commune  ...  I  do 
not  desire  to  be  understood  as  maintaining  that  it 
implies  necessarily  the  assumption  of  complete  com- 
munism between  the  sexes.  Assuming  that  the  former 
physical  conditions  of  the  Australian  continent  were 
much  as  they  are  now,  coihplete  communism  always 
existing  would,  I  think,  be  an  impossibility.  The 
character  of  the  country,  the  necessity  of  hunting  for 
food,  and  of  removing  from  one  spot  to  another  in 
search  of  game  and  of  vegetable  food,  would  neces- 
sarily cause  any  undivided  commune,  when  it  assumed 
dimensions  of  more  than  that  of  a  few  members^  to  break 
uPf  under  the  necessities  of  existence,  into  two  or 
more  communes  of  similar  constitution  to  itself.  In 
addition  to  this  it  has  become  evident  to  me,  after  a  long 
acquaintance  with  the  Australian  savage,  that,  in  the  past 
as  now,  individual  likes  and  dislikes  must  have  existed ; 
so  that,  although  there  was  the  admitted  common  right 
between  certain  groups  of  the  commune,  in  practice 
these  rights  would  either  not  be  exercised  by  reason  of 
various  causes,  or  would  remain  in  abeyance,  so  far  as 
the  separated  but  allied  undivided  communes  were  con- 
cerned, until  on  great  ceremonial  occasions,  or  where 
certain  periodical  gatherings  for  food  purposes  reunited 
temporarily  all  the  segments  of  the  original  community. 
In   short,  so  far  as  the  evidence  goes  at  present,  I 

^/.  ^. /.,  xii.  p.  497.     Cf.  Nathfi   Tribes  of  South -East  Australia, 
PP- 173. 174. 


COMMUNAL  HORDE   BROKEN  UP         6i 

am  inclined  to  regard  the  probable  condition  of  the 
undivided  commune  as  being  well  represented  now  by 
what  occurs  when  on  certain  occasions  the  modified 
divided  communes  reunite."  ^ 

What  occurs  in  these  festive  assemblies  among 
certain  central  and  northern  tribes,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a 
legalised  and  restricted  change  of  wives  all  round,  with 
disregard,  in  some  cases,  of  some  of  the  tribal  rules 
against  incest.  On  Mr.  Howitt's  theory  the  undivided 
communal  horde  must  always  have  been,  as  I  have 
urged,  dividing  itself,  omiig  to  lack  of  supplies.  It 
would  be  a  very  small  group,  continually  broken  up, 
and  intercourse  of  the  sexes  even  in  that  group,  must 
have  been  restrained  by  jealousy,  based  on  the  asserted 
existence  of  individual  'Mikes"  and  'Mislikes."  These 
restrictions,  again,  must  have  led  to  some  idea  that  the 
man  usually  associated  with,  and  responsible  for  feeding, 
and  protecting,  and  correcting  the  woman  and  her 
children,  was  just  the  man  who  **  liked "  her,  the  man 
whom  she  'Miked,"  and  the  man  who  ''disliked"  other 
men  if  they  wooed  her. 

But  that  state  of  things  is  not  an  undivided  communal 
horde  at  all !  It  is  much  more  akin  to  the  state  of  things 
in  which  I  take  marriage  rules  to  have  arisen. 

We  may  suppose,  then,  that  early  moral  distinctions 
and  restrictions  grew  up  among  the  practically  "  family  " 
groups  of  everyday  life,  as  described  by  Mr.  Howitt,  and 
we  need  not  discuss  again  the  question  whether,  at  this 
very  early  period,  there  existed  a  community  exactly 
like  the  local  tribe  of  to-day  in  every  respect — except 
that  marriage  was  utterly  unregulated,  till  an  inspired 

^  I  neglected  to  observe  this  important  ptssage  when  reviewing  Mr. 
Howitt's  ideas  in  SoeiaJ  Ory^m, 


62  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

medicine  man  promulgated  the  law  of  exogamy,  his  own 
invention. 

Mr.  Howitt  began  his  long  and  invaluable  studies  of 
these  problems  as  a  disciple  of  Mr.  Lewis  Morgan.  That 
scholar  was  a  warm  partisan  of  the  primeval  horde, 
of  group  marriage,  and  (at  times)  of  a  reformatory 
movement.  These  ideas,  first  admitted  to  Mr.  Howitt's 
mind,  have  remained  with  him,  but  he  has  seen  clearly 
that  the  whole  theory  needed  at  least  that  essential  modi- 
fication which  his  practical  knowledge  of  savage  life  has 
enabled  him  to  make.  He  does  not  seem  to  me  to  hold 
that  the  promiscuous  horde  suddenly,  for  no  reason, 
reformed  itself :  his  reformers  had  previous  ethical 
training  in  a  state  of  daily  life  which  is  not  that  of  the 
hypothetical  horde.  But  he  still  clings  to  the  horde, 
tiny  as  it  must  have  been,  as  the  source  of  a  tradition  of 
a  brief-lived  period  of  promiscuity.  This  faith  is  but  the 
''  after-image  "  left  in  his  mental  processes  by  the  glow 
of  Mr.  Morgan's  theory,  but  the  faith  is  confirmed  by  his 
view  of  the  terms  of  relationship,  and  of  the  PiraungarUf 
PirraurUf  and  similar  customs.  We  have  shown,  in  the 
last  chapter,  that  the  terms  and  the  customs  are  not 
necessarily  proofs  of  promiscuity  in  the  past,  but  may 
be  otherwise  interpreted  with  logical  consistency,  and 
in  conformity  with  human  nature. 

The  statement  of  Mr.  Howitt  shows  how  the  com- 
munal horde  of  the  hypothesis  might  come  to  see  that  it 
needed  moral  reformation.  In  daily  life,  by  Mr.  Howitt's 
theory,  it  had  practically  ceased  to  be  a  communal  horde 
before  the  medicine  man  was  inspired  to  reform  it.  The 
hypothesis  of  Professor  Baldwin  Spencer  resembles  that 
of  Mr.  Howitt,  but,  unlike  his  (as  it  used  to  stand), 
accounts  for  the  existence  of   animal-named    sets   of 


THEORY  OF  ARUNTA  PRIMITIVENESS    63 

people  within  the  phratries.  Mr.  Spencer,  starting  from 
the  present  social  condition  of  the  Arunta  '*  nation "  or 
group  of  tribes  (Arunta,  Kaitish,  Ilpirra,  Unmatjera), 
supposes  that  these  tribes  retain  pristine  traits,  once 
universal,  but  now  confined  to  them.  The  peculiar 
pristine  traits,  by  the  theory,  are  (i)  the  existence  of 
animal-named  local  societies  for  magical  purposes.  The 
members  of  each  local  group  worked  magic  for  their 
name-giving  animal  or  plant,  but  any  one  might  marry  a 
woman  of  his  own  group  name.  Eagle  Hawk,  Cockatoo, 
and  the  like,  while  these  names  were  not  inherited,  either 
from  father  or  mother,  and  did  not  denote  a  bond  of  kin- 
ship. Mr.  Spencer,  then,  supposes  the  horde  to  have 
been  composed  of  such  magical  societies,  at  a  very 
remote  date,  before  sexual  relations  were  regulated  by 
any  law.  Later,  in  some  fashion,  and  for  some  reason 
which  Mr.  Spencer  does  not  profess  to  explain,  *'  there 
was  felt  the  need  of  some  form  of  organisation,  and 
this  gradually  resulted  in  the  development  of  exogamous 
groups." ^  These  ''exogamous  groups,"  among  the  Arunta, 
are  now  the  four  or  eight  ''matrimonial  classes,"  as  among 
other  tribes  of  northern  Australia.  These  tribes,  as  a 
rule,  have  phratries,  but  the  Arunta  have  lost  even  the 
phratry  names. 

Mr.  Spencer's  theory  thus  explains  the  existence  of 
animal-named  groups — as  co-operative  magical  societies, 
for  breeding  the  animals  or  plants — ^but  does  not  explain 
how  exogamy  arose,  or  why,  everywhere,  except  among 
the  Arunta,  all  the  animal  or  plant  named  sets  of  people 
are  kinships,  and  are  exogamous,  while  they  are  neither 
the  one  or  the  other  among  the  Arunta.  Either  the 
Arunta  groups  have  once  been  exogamous  totem 
1  /.  A.  /.,  N.S.,  i.  pp.  384, 285. 


64  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

kinships,  and  have  ceased  to  be  so,  becoming  magical 
societies;  or  such  animal-named  sets  of  people  have, 
everywhere,  first  been  magical  societies,  and  later 
become  exogamous  totem  kinships.  Mr.  Spencer  holds 
the  latter  view,  we  hold  the  former,  believing  that  the 
Arunta  have  once  been  in  the  universal  state  of  totemic 
exogamy,  and  that,  by  a  perfectly  intelligible  pro- 
cess, their  animal-named  groups  have  become  magical 
societies,  no  longer  exogamous  kinships.  We  can  show 
how  the  old  exogamous  totem  kinship,  among  the 
Arunta,  became  a  magical  society,  not  regulating  sexual 
relations ;  but  we  cannot  imagine  how  all  totemic  man- 
kind, if  they  began  with  magical  societies  in  an  unregu- 
lated horde,  should  have  everywhere,  except  among  the 
Arunta,  conspired  to  convert  these  magical  societies  into 
kinships  with  exogamy.  If  the  social  organisation  of 
the  Arunta  were  peculiarly  primitive,  if  their  beliefs  and 
ceremonials  were  of  the  most  archaic  type,  there  might 
be  some  ground  for  Mr.  Spencer's  opinion.  But  Mr. 
Hartland  justly  says  that  all  the  beliefs  and  institutions 
of  the  Arunta  '^  point  in  the  same  direction,  namely,  that 
the  Arunta  are  the  most  advanced  and  not  the  most 
primitive  of  the  Central  Australian  tribes."  ^ 

The  Arunta,  a  tribe  so  advanced  that  it  has  forgotten 
its  phratry  names,  has  male  kinship,  eight  matrimonial 
classes,  and  local  totem  groups,  with  Headmen  heredi- 
tary in  the  male  line,  and  so  cannot  possibly  be  called 
"primitive,"  as  regards  organisation.  If,  then,  the  tribe 
possesses  a  peculiar  institution,  contravening  what  is 
universally  practised,  the  natural  inference  is  that  the 

^  Folk  Lorty  December  1904,  p.  473.  For  Mr.  Spencer's  assertion  that 
the  Arunta  sodai  type  is  advanced,  see  Central  TriUs ;  of.  p.  211.  For 
the  probable  advanced  and  relatively  recent  character  of  their  initiatory 
ceremonies,  see  Central  THdes,  p.  2x7  ;  Northern  Tribes^  p.  329. 


CONDITIONS  OF  ARUNTA  SYSTEM        65 

Arunta  institution,  being  absolutely  isolated  and  unique, 
as  far  as  its  non-exogamy  goes,  in  an  advanced  tribe,  is 
a  local  freak  or  '^  sport,"  like  many  others  which  exist. 
This  inference  seems  to  be  corroborated  when  we  dis- 
cover, as  we  do  at  a  glance,  the  peculiar  conditions 
without  which  the  Arunta  organisation  is  physically 
impossible.  These  essential  and  indispensable  conditions 
are  admitted  by  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  to  be : — 

1.  Male  reckoning  of  descent — which  is  found  in  very 
many  tribes  where  totems  are  exogamous — as  everywhere. 

2.  Local  totem  groups,  which  are  a  result  of  male 
reckoning  of  descent  These  also  are  found  in  many 
other  tribes  where,  as  everywhere,  totems  are  exo- 
gamous. 

3.  The  belief  that  the  spirits  of  the  primal  ancestors 
of  the  "Dream-Time"  (AUAeringay--CTtztures  evolved 
out  of  various  animal  shapes  into  human  form — are 
constantly  reincarnated  in  new-born  children.  This 
belief  is  found  in  all  the  northern  tribes  with  male 
descent;  and  among  the  Urabunna,  who  have  female 
descent — ^but  among  all  these  tribes  totems  are  exoga- 
mous, as  everywhere. 

4*  The  Arunta  and  Kaitish,  with  two  or  three  minor 
neighbouring  tribes,  believe  that  spirits  desiring  incarna- 
tion, all  of  one  totem  in  each  case,  reside  "at  certain 
definite  spots."  So  do  the  Urabunna  believe,  but  at 
each  of  these  spots,  in  Urabunna  land,  there  may  be 
spirits  0/  several  different  totems}  Among  the  Urabunna, 
as  everywhere,  totems  are  exogamous.  None  of  these 
four  conditions,  nor  all  of  them,  can  produce  the  Arunta 
totemic  non-exogamy. 

Finally  (5)  the  Arunta  and  Kaitish,  and  they  alone, 

^  Northern  TridM,  p.  147. 


66  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

believe  not  only  that  the  spirits  desiring  reincarnation 
reside  at  certain  definite  spots,  and  not  only  that  the 
spirits  there  are,  in  each  case,  all  of  one  totem  (which  is 
essential),  but  also  that  these  spirits  are  most  closely 
associated  with  objects  of  stone,  inscribed  with  archaic 
markings  {churinga  nanja\  which  the  spirits  have  dropped 
in  these  places — ^the  scenes  where  the  ancestors  died 
{Oknanikilla).  These  stone  objects,  and  this  belief  in 
their  connection'  with  ancestral  spirits,  are  found  in  the 
Arunta  region  alone,  and  are  the  determining  cause,  or 
inseparable  accident  at  least,  of  the  non-exogamy  of 
Arunta  totemism,  as  will  be  fully  explained  later. 

Not  one  of  these  five  conditions,  is  reported  by  Mr. 
Howitt  among  the  primitive  south-eastern  tribes,  and 
the  fifth  is  found  only  in  Aruntadom.  Yet  Mr.  Spencer 
regards  as  the  earliest  form  of  totemism  extant  that 
Arunta  form,  which  requires  four  conditions,  not  found 
in  the  tribes  of  primitive  organisation,  and  a  fifth,  which 
is  peculiar  to  the  Arunta  '^  nation  *'  alone. 

That  the  Arunta  tribe,  whether  shut  off  from  aU 
others  or  not  (as  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  not),  should  alone 
(while  advanced  in  all  respects,  including  marriage  and 
ceremonials)  have  retained  a  belief  which,  though  called 
primitive,  is  unknown  among  primitive  tribes,  seems  a 
singularly  paradoxical  hypothesis.  Meanwhile  the  cause 
of  the  Arunta  peculiarity — ^non-exogamous  totems — ^is 
recognised  by  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen,  who  also 
declare  that  the  cause.is  isolated.  They  say  '^it  is  the 
idea  of  spirit  individuals  associated  with  churinga" 
(manufactured  objects  of  stone),  ''and  resident  in 
certain  definite  spots,  that  lies  at  the  root  of  the  present 
totemic  system  of  the  Arunta  tribe."  ^ 

1  Central  THbis^  p.  123. 


ISOLATION  OF  STONE  CHURINGA        67 

Again,  they  inform  us  that  the  churinga  belief,  and 
the  existence  of  stone  churinga^  are  things  isolated.  ^'  In 
the  Worgaia  tribe,  which  inhabits  the  country  to  the 
north-east  of  the  Kaitish"  (neighbours  of  the  Arunta), 
'^  we  meet,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  discover,  with 
the  last  traces  of  the  churinga — ^that  is,  of  the  churinga 
with  its  meaning  and  significance,  as  known  to  us  in  the 
true  central  tribes,  as  associated  with  the  spirits  of 
Alcheringa  ancestors  "  (mythical  beings,  supposed  to  be 
constantly  reincarnated).^  Thus,  "the  present  totemic 
system  of  the  Arunta  tribe," — ^in  which,  contrary  to 
universal  rule,  persons  of  the  same  totem  may  inter- 
marry— reposes  on  a  belief  associated  with  certain 
manufactured  articles  of  stone,  and  neither  the  belief 
nor  the  stone  objects  are  discovered  beyond  a  certain 
limited  region.  It  is  proper  to  add  that  the  regretted 
Mr.  David  Carnegie  found,  at  Family  Wells,  in  the 
desert  of  Central  Australia,  two  stone  objects,  one  plain, 
the  other  rudely  marked  with  concentric  circles,  which 
resemble  churinga  nanja.  He  mentions  two  others  found 
and  thrown  away  by  Colonel  Warburton.  The  meaning 
or  use  of  these  objects  was  not  ascertained.' 

We  di£Fer  from  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  when  they 
think  that  this  peculiar  and  isolated  belief,  held  by  four 
or  five  tribes  of  confessedly  advanced  social  organisa- 
tion and  ceremonials  (a  belief  only  possible  under 
advanced  social  organisation),  is  the  pristine  form  of 
totemism,  out  of  which  all  totemists,  however  primitive, 
have  found  their  way  except  the  Arunta  "  nation  "  alone. 
Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  write  :''..,  the  only  con- 
clusion which  it  seems  possible  to  arrive  at  is  that  in  the 

*  Northern  Tribes^  p.  274. 

'/.  A,  /.,  August  1898,  pp.  20»  31. 


68  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

more  northern  tribes"  (which  have  no  churinga  nanja, 
no  stone  churinga),  ''  the  churinga  represent  the  surviv- 
ing relics  of  a  time  when  the  beliefs  among  those  tribes 
were  similar  to  those  which  now  exist  among  the  Arunta. 
It  is  more  easy  to  imagine  a  change  which  shall  lead 
from  the  present  Arunta  or  Kaitish  belief  to  that  which 
exists  among  the  Warramunga,  than  it  is  to  imagine  one 
which  shall  lead  from  the  Warramunga  to  the  Arunta."^ 
Now  among  the  Warramunga,  as  everywhere,  the  division 
of  the  totems  between  the  two  (exogamous)  moieties  is 
complete,  ''and,  with  very  few  exceptions  indeed,  the 
children  follow  the  father."  '  (These  exceptions  are  not 
explained.)  Among  the  Kaitish  the  same  totems  occur 
among  both  exogamous  moieties,  so  persons  of  the  same 
totem  can  intermarry,  but  ''  it  is  a  very  rare  thing  for  a 
man  to  marry  a  woman  of  the  same  totem  as  himself." ' 

The  obvious  conclusion  is  the  reverse  of  that  which 
our  authors  think  ''alone  possible."  The  Kaitish  have 
adopted  the  Arunta  churinga  nanja  usage  which  intro- 
duces the  same  totem  into  both  exogamous  moieties,  but, 
unlike  the  Arunta,  they  have  not  yet  discarded  the  old 
universal  rule,  "No  marriage  within  the  totem."  It  is 
not  absolutely  forbidden,  but  it  scarcely  ever  occurs. 
The  Kaitish,  as  regards  exogamy  and  religion,  are  a 
link  between  the  primitive  south-eastern  tribes  and  the 
Arunta. 

We  go  on  to  show  in  detail  how  Arunta  totems  alone 
ceased  to  be  exogamous,  and  to  demonstrate  that  the 
more  northern  tribes  have  never  been,  and  never  can 
have  been,  in  the  present  Arunta  condition.  Among  the 
Arunta,  in  the  classes,  none  of  them  his  own,  into  which 
alone  a  man  may  marry,  there  are  plenty  of  women  of  his 

»  Northern  Ttibts,  p.  281.  «  Ibid.,  p.  175.  »  Ibid. 


ARUNTA  MYTHS  69 

own  totem.  Thus,  in  marrying  a  woman  of  his  totem^ 
but  not  of  his  set  of  classes,  a  man  does  not  break  the 
law  of  Arunta  exogamy.  Now  how  does  it  happen  that 
a  totem  may  be  in  both  sets  of  exogamous  classes  among 
the  Arunta  alone  of  mankind  ?  Was  this  always  the  case 
from  the  beginning  ? 

It  is,  naturally,  our  opinion  that  among  the  Arunta, 
as  everywhere  else,  matters  were  originally,  or  not  much 
later,  so  arranged  that  the  same  totem  never  appeared  in 
both  phratries,  or,  afterwards,  when  phratries  were  lost, 
in  both  opposed  sets  of  two  or  four  exogamous  matri- 
monial classes.  The  only  objection  to  this  theory  is 
that  the  Arunta  themselves  believe  it,  and  mention  the 
circumstance  in  their  myths.  These  myths  cannot  be 
historical  reminiscences  of  the  ''Dream-Time,"  which 
never  existed.  But  even  a  myth  may  deviate  into  truth, 
especially  as  the  Arunta  must  know  that  in  other  tribes 
the  same  totem  never  occurs  in  both  phratries,  and  are 
clever  enough  to  see  that  their  method  needs  explanation 
as  being  an  exception  to  general  rule;  and  that,  even 
now,  "the  great  majority  of  any  one  totem  belong  to 
one  moiety  of  the  tribe."  So  they  say  that  originally  all 
Witchetty  Grubs,  for  instance,  were  in  the  Bulthara- 
Panunga  moiety  (as  most  Grubs  still  are  to  this  day), 
while  all  Emus  were  in  the  opposite  exogamous  moiety 
(Purula-Kumura).  But,  say  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen, 
''  owing  to  the  system  according  to  which  totem  names 
are  "  {now)  "  acquired,  it  is  always  possible  for  a  man  to 
be,  say,  a  Purula  or  a  Kumura,  and  yet  a  Witchetty;  or, 
on  the  other  hand,  a  Bulthara  or  a  Panunga,  and  yet  an 
Emu-^i  The  present  system  of  acquiring  totem  names 
has  transferred  the  totems  into  both  exogamous  moieties, 

^  dntral  Tribis^  pp.  135,  ia6. 


70     THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

and  so  has  made  it  possible  to  marry  within  the  totem 
name. 

This  suggests  that,  in  native  opinion  or  conjecture, 
Arunta  totems,  like  all  others,  were  once  exogamous; 
no  totem  ever  occurred  originally  in  both  exogamous 
moieties.  It  also  indicates  that,  in  the  opinion  of  Messrs. 
Spencer  and  Gillen,  they  only  ceased  to  be  exogamous 
when  the  present  method  of  acquiring  totem  names,  an 
unique  method,  was  introduced.  Happily,  to  prove  the 
historical  worthlessness  of  Arunta  legendary  myth,  the 
tribe  has  a  contradictory  legend.  The  same  totem, 
according  to  this  fable,  occurred  in  both  exogamous 
moieties,  even  in  the  mythic  Dream-Time  {Alcheringa) ; 
by  this  fable  the  natives  explain  (what  needs  explaining) 
how  the  same  totem  does  occur  in  both  exogamous 
moieties  to-day,  and  so  is  not  exogamous.^ 

This  is  nonsense,  just  as  the  other  contradictory  myth 
was  conjecture.  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  have  them- 
selves explained  why  the  same  totem  may  now  occur  in 
both  moieties,  and  so  be  non-exogamous.  The  unique 
phenomenon  is  due  to  the  actual  and  unique  method  of 
acquiring  totem  names.'  Thus  the  modern  method  is 
not  primitive.    These  passages  are  very  instructive. 

The  Arunta  have  been  so  long  in  the  relatively  ad- 
vanced state  of  local  totemism  that  their  myths  do  not 
look  behind  it.  A  group,  whether  stationary  or  migra- 
tory, in  the  myths  of  the  Dream-Time  (the  Alcheringa) 
always  consists  of  persons  of  the  same  totem,  with 
occasional  visitors  of  other  totems.  The  myths,  we 
repeat,  reflect  the  present  state  of  local  totem  groups 
back  on  the  past. 

*  Northern  Tribes,  pp.  151,  152. 

*  Central  Tribes,  pp.  125,  126. 


PRESENT  USAGE  71 

The  myths  allege  (here  the  isolated  superstition  comes 
in)  that  the  mythical  ancestors  of  the  Alcheringa  died,  or 
"  went  into  the  ground  "  at  certain  now  haunted  spots, 
marked  by  rocks  or  trees,  which  may  be  called  '^  mor- 
tuary local  totem-centres" — in  native  speech,  OknamktUa} 
Trees  or  rocks  arose  to  mark  the  spot  where  the  ances- 
tors, all  of  one  totem  in  each  case,  went  into  the  ground* 
These  trees  or  rocks  are  called  Nanja.  Thereabouts 
the  dying  ancestors  deposited  possessions  peculiar  to 
Aruntadom,  their  stone  amulets,  or  churinga  nanja^  with 
what  are  now  read  as  totemic  incised  marks.  Their 
spirits,  all  of  one  totem  in  each  case,  haunt  the  Nanja 
rock  or  tree,  and  are  especially  attached  to  these  stone 
amulets,'  called  churinga  nanja.  The  spirits  discarnate 
await  a  chance  of  entering  into  women,  and  being 
reborn.  When  a  child  comes  to  the  birth,  the  mother, 
whatever  her  own  or  her  husband's  totem  may  be,  names 
the  spot  where  she  supposes  that  she  conceived  the 
child,  and  the  child's  Nanja  tree  or  rock  is  that  in  the 
Oknanikilla^  or  mortuary  local  totem -centre  nearest  to 
the  place  where  the  child  was  conceived.  Its  male  kin 
hunt  for  the  churinga,  or  stone  amulet,  there  deposited 
by  the  dying  Alcheringa  ancestor  ;  if  they  find  it,  it  be- 
comes the  child's  churinga,  for  he  is  merely  the  ancestor 
spirit  reborn.  He  (or  she)  "comes  into  his  own"; 
his  Nanja  tree  or  rock,  his  churinga  nanja,  and  his 
original  totem,  which  may  be,  and  often  is,  neither  that 
of  his  father  or  mother. 

Thus  inheriting  his  own  old  Nanja  tree  and  churinga, 
and  totem,  the  child  is  not  necessarily  of  his  fathet^s  or 
mother^ s  but  is  of  his  own  old  original  totem,  say  Grub,  or 

^  Spencer  and  Gxllen,  CaUral  Tribts^  p.  123. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  15a    figures  of  the  objects  are  giyen. 


72  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Hakea  Flower,  or  Kangaroo,  or  Frog.  His  totem  is 
thus  not  inherited,  we  repeat,  as  elsewhere,  from  either 
parent,  but  is  derived,  by  the  accident  of  his  place  of 
conception,  from  the  local  totem,  from  the  totemic  ghosts 
(all  of  one  totem)  haunting  the  particular  mortuary  totem 
centre,  or  Oknanikilla^  where  he  was  conceived  His 
totem  may  thus  be  in  both  of  the  exogamous  moieties, 
and  for  that  reason  alone  is  not  exogamous.  To  take 
an  example.  A  woman,  by  totem  Cat,  has  a  husband  by 
totem  Iguana.  She  conceives  a  child,  and  believes  that 
she  conceived  it  in  a  certain  district  The  local  totem 
of  that  district  is  the  Grub,  Grub  ghosts  haunt  the 
region ;  the  child,  therefore,  is  a  Grub.  He  inherits 
his  exogamous  class,  say  Bulthara,  from  his  father, 
and  he  must  marry  a  woman  of  Class  Kumara.  But 
she  may  also  be  a  Grub,  for  her  totem,  like  his,  has 
been  acquired  (like  his,  not  by  inheritance,  but)  by  the 
accident  that  her  mother  conceived  her  in  a  Grub 
district.  Thus,  and  thus  only,  are  totems  not  exogamous 
among  the  Arunta.  They  are  not  inherited  from  either 
parent. 

It  is  probable  that,  after  male  descent  came  in,  the 
Arunta  and  Kaitish  at  first  inherited  their  totems  from 
their  fathers,  as  among  all  other  tribes  with  male  descent. 
This  appears  to  be  proved  by  the  fact  that  they  still  do 
inherit,  from  their  fathers,  totemic  rites,  and  the  power  of 
doing  totemic  mummeries  for  their  fathers'  totems,  even 
when,  by  the  accident  of  their  places  of  conception,  they 
do  not  inherit  their  fathers'  totems.  When  they  did  in- 
herit the  paternal  totem,  they  were,  doubtless,  totemically 
exogamous,  like  all  other  tribes  with  either  male  or  female 
descent. 

One  simple  argument  upsets  the  claim  of  Arunta 


FEMALE  DESCENT  73 

totems  to  be  primitive.  In  no  tribe  with  female  descent 
can  a  district  have  its  local  totem,  as  among  the  Arunta. 
A  district  can  only  have  a  local  totem  if  the  majority  of 
the  living  people,  and  of  the  haunting  ghosts  of  the  dead, 
are  of  one  totem  only.  But  this  (setting  aside  the  occa- 
sional results  of  an  isolated  Urabunna  superstition)  can 
only  occur  under  male  reckoning  of  descent,  which  con- 
fessedly is  not  primitive.  In  a  region  where  reckoning 
in  the  female  line  exists  a  woman  could  not  say, ''  I  con- 
ceived my  child  in  Grub  district,  the  country  of  totem 
Grub  " — for  such  a  country  there  is  not  and  cannot  be. 
Consequently,  among  the  Urabunna  as  everywhere  with 
reckoning  of  descent  in  the  female  line,  every  child  is  of 
its  mother's  totem. 

Let  us  examine  other  tribes  who,  like  the  Arunta,  have 
the  theory  of  reincarnation,  but  whose  totems  are,  as 
elsewhere,  exogamous,  unlike  those  of  the  Arunta.  The 
Urabunna  have  female  descent,  and  their  myth  about 
the  origin  of  totemic  ancestors  approximates  to  that  of 
the  Arunta,  but,  unlike  the  Arunta  fable,  does  not  pro- 
duce, or  account  for,  non-exogamy  in  totems.  Things 
began,  say  the  Urabunna,  by  the  appearance  of  a  few 
creatures  half  human,  half  bestial  or  vegetable.  They  had 
miraculous  powers,  and  dropped  spirits  which  tenanted 
lizards,  snakes,  and  so  on,  all  over  the  district.  These 
spirits  later  became  incarnated  in  human  beings  of 
the  Lizard,  Snake,  or  other  totem,  and  are  constantly 
being  reincarnated.  The  two  Urabunna  phratries  were 
originally  a  green  and  a  brown  snake  :  the  Green  Snake 
said  to  the  Brown  Snake,  ''I  am  Kirarawa,  you  are 
Matthurie" — ^the  phratry  names.  It  does  not  appear 
that  these  names  now  mean  Green  Snake  and  Brown 
Snake,  though  they  may  once  have  had  these  significa- 


74  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

tions.  The  spirits  left  about  by  these  snakes,  like  all  the 
other  such  spirits  (mai  aurli),  keep  on  being  incarnated^ 
and,  when  incamatedi  the  children  bear  the  totem  name 
of  their  mothers  in  each  case.  A  Green  Snake  woman 
is  entered  by  a  spirit,  which  she  bears  as  a  Green  Snake 
child.  The  accident  of  the  locality  in  which  the  child 
was  conceived  does  not  affect  his  totem,  so  Urabunna 
totems  remain  in  their  own  proper  phratries,  and  there- 
fore, by  phratry  law,  are  exogamous,  as  everywhere, 
except  among  the  Arunta.^ 

This  arrangement  is  merely  the  usual  arrangement, 
with  female  descent  A  woman's  child  is  of  the  woman's 
totem.  Believing  in  reincarnation,  the  Urabunna  merely 
adapt  that  belief  to  the  facts.  With  female  descent  an 
Emu  woman's  child  is  Emu.  If  a  tribe  has  male 
descent,  an  Emu  father's  child  is  Emu.  With  female 
descent,  a  spirit  has  entered  an  Emu  woman  and  been 
born  Emu :  with  male  descent,  a  spirit  has  entered  the 
wife  of  an  Emu  man,  and,  by  inheritance  from  his  father, 
is  Emu.  Yet  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  think  that  the 
Arunta  and  Kaitish  rule — demanding  the  non-primitive 
male  descent,  local  groups,  local  ghosts  all  of  one  totem, 
and  churinga  stones  of  the  mark  of  that  totem  (all  of 
which  are  indispensable), ''  is  probably  the  simplest  and 
most  primitive."  * 

Most  primitive,  by  our  author's  own  statement,  the 
Arunta  method  cannot  be,  for,  as  they  show,  it  demands 
male  descent,  local  totemism,  and  the  peculiar  belief 
about  manufactured  stone  churitiga.  But  they  think  it 
''most  simple,"  because  the  Urabunna  have  a  compli- 
cated myth,  which,  however,  in  no  way  affects  the  result, 
namely,  that  each  child  takes  its  mother's  totem.    E^Slch 

^  Northern  Triies^  pp.  Z45-148.  *  Ibid.,  p.  174. 


URABUNNA   MYTH  75 

spirit,  according  to  the  myth,  changes  its  phratry  and 
sex,  and,  necessarily,  its  totem,  at  each  reincarnation, 
but  that  does  not  affect  the  result.  Each  child,  as  in  all 
tribes  with  female  descent,  is  still  of  its  mother's  totem.^ 
No  churinga  nanja  cause  an  anomaly  among  the  Ura- 
bunna,  for  the  churinga  nanja^  and  the  belief  about  them, 
among  the  Urabunna  do  not  exist. 

The  Urabunna  myth,  adapted  to  male  descent,  occurs 
in  all  the  northern  tribes,  from  the  northern  bounds  of 
the  Kaitish  to  the  sea,  which  have  no  stone  churinga 
nanja;  and  in  all  of  them  totems  are  exogamous,  because 
they  never  occur  in  both  phratries,  being  uninfluenced 
by  the  Arunta  churinga  belief.  They  cannot,  for  they  are 
duly  inherited  from  the  father,  and  they  are  so  inherited 
because  the  tribes  have  not  the  exceptional  Churinga 
Nanja  creed,  attaching  the  spirit  to  the  amulet  of  a  local 
totem  group,  which  fixes — by  the  accident  of  place  of 
conception — the  totem  of  each  child 

The  Arunta  non-exogamous  totems,  in  Australia,  as 
we  saw,  are  only  found  where  stone  churinga  nanja  are 
in  use ;  these  amulets  being  peculiarly  the  residence  of 
the  spirits  of  totemic  ancestors. 

The  origin  of  that  belief  is  obscure.  It  could  not 
arise  in  the  present  condition  of  Arunta  or  Kaitish  a£Fairs, 
for,  now,  every  stone  churinga  in  the  tribe  has  already  its 
recognised  legal  owner,  and,  on  the  death  of  an  owner, 
or  the  extinction  of  a  local  totem  group,  the  churinga  are 
not  left  lying  about  to  be  found  on  or  in  the  earth,  but 
pass  by  a  definite  rule  of  inheritance ;  and  they  are  all 
carefully  warded  and  frequently  examined,  in  Ertnatu- 
lunga^  or  sacred    storehouses.^     Thus    stone    churinga 

>  Northern  Tribes^  pp.  146,  149. 

*  Spencer  and  Gillen,  Ce$Ural  Tribes^  pp.  153-155. 


76  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

nanja^  to-day,  are  not  left  lying  about  on  the  surface,  or 
buried  in  graves,  like  those  which,  on  the  birth  of  each 
Arunta  child,  are  sought  for,  and  sometimes  found,  at 
the  local  totem-centre,  and  near  the  Nanja  tree  or  rock, 
where  the  child  was  conceived.  There  churinga  nanja 
must  have  been  buried^  of  old,  if  our  authors  correctly 
say  that  the  mythical  ancestors  '^  went  into  the  groiuid, 
each  carrying  his  churinga  with  him."  ^  Again  we  read, 
''  Many  of  the  churinga  were  placed  in  the  ground,  some 
natural  object  again  marking  the  spot."  The  spot  was 
always  marked  by  some  natural  object,  such  as  a  tree  or 
rock.' 

Though  our  authors  tell  us  that  they  know  Arunta 
natives  who,  on  the  birth  of  a  child,  have  sought  for  and 
found  his  churinga  nanja  near  the  Nanja  rock  or  tree  next 
to  the  place  where  he  was  conceived,  they  do  not  say 
that  the  churinga  are  found  by  digging.*  If  they  are, 
or  if  the  Oknanikilla  really  are  ancient  burying-places 
(about  which  we  are  told  nothing),  the  association  of  the 
churinga  nanja  with  the  ghost  of  the  man  in  whose  grave 
it  is  buried  would  be  easily  explained.  But  the  im- 
pression left  is  that  the  stone  churinga  nanja  found  after 
search  are  discovered  on  the  surface,  dropped  there  by 
the  spirit  when  about  to  be  reincarnated.^ 

^  Spencer  and  Gillen,  CetUral  Tribes,  p.  123. 

■  Op.  cit.,  p.  124.  ^  Op.  cU.^  p.  132. 

*  The  churittga  here  spoken  of  are  a  kind  of  stone  amalets,  of  very  various 

shapes,  marked  with  snch  archaic  patterns  of  cups,  concentric  circles  or  half 

circles,  and  other  devices  as  are  found  on  rock  sur&ces  in  our  islands,  in 

India,  and  generally  all  over  the  world,  as  in  New  Caledonia.    The  same 

psarks  occur  on  small  plaques  of  slate  or  schist,  in  Portuguese  neolithic  sites, 

in  palaeolithic  sites,  and  in  Scotland,  where  Dr.  Munro  regards  them  as  not 

of  genuine  antiquity.    See  Antiguedades  Prehistorieas  de  AMdaluaa,  Gongoia 

y  Martinez,  Ibladrid,  1868,  p.  109;  Antiguedades  Afonumemtaes  do  Afgarvej 

vol.    it  pp.  429-462,  Estado  da  Veiga,  Lisbon,  1887 ;  Porttigalia,  L  Part 

^^•f  Severo  and  Brenha,  1903;  Magic  and  Religion  (A.  L.),  pp.  246-256. 


OTHER   INSCRIBED  STONES  77 

Here  a  curious  fact  may  be  filed  for  reference.  Stone 
amulets,  fashioned  and  decorated  by  man,  are  not  known 
to  be  in  use  south  of  the  Arunta  region.  But  a  cousin 
of  my  own,  Mr.  William  Lang,  found  a  stone  object  not 
unlike  one  figured  by  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen,  on  his 
station  near  Cooma,  New  South  Wales.  The  decoration 
was  of  the  rectilineal  type  prevalent  in  that  region. 
Mr.  Lang  knew  nothing  of  the  Arunta  churinga  till  I 
drew  his  attention  to  the  subject.  He  then  visited  the 
Sydney  Museum,  and  found  several  stone  objects, 
''  banana-shaped,''  exactly  like  the  specimen  (wooden  ?), 
one  out  of  five  known  to  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen, 
and  published  by  them  in  their  first  work  (p.  150).  The 
New  South  Wales  ornament,  however,  was  always  recti- 
lineal. The  articles  appear  to  be  obsolete  among  the 
tribes  of  New  South  Wales.  It  is  said  that  they  were 
erected  of  old  round  graves  of  the  dead.  Whites  call 
them  ''grave  stones."  Careful  articles  on  these  decorated 
stone  objects  of  New  South  Wales  have  been  written 
by  Mr.  W.  R.  Harper  and  Mr.  Graham  Officer.^  As  a 
rule,  they  are  not  banana-shaped  or  crescentine,  but  are 
in  the  form  of  enormous  stone  cigars.  They  used  to  be 
placed,  twelve  or  thirteen  of  them,  on  graves,  and  their 
weight,  averaging  about  3  lbs.  to  4  lbs.,  makes  them  less 
portable  than  most  of  the  churinga  of  the  Arunta.  It 
does  not  seem  at  all  probable  that  Arunta  stone  churinga 
were  ever  erected  round  graves,  but  excavations  at 
OknanikiUa^  if  they  could  be  executed  without  a  shock 

1901.  For  a  palaeolithic  bone  object,  exactly  like  an  Amnta  churinga^  see 
Hoernes,  Der  DihanaU  Mtnsch  in  Europa^  p.  138,  1903.  It  does  not 
follow,  of  course,  that  these  objects  in  Europe  were  ever  connected  with  a 
belief  like  that  of  the  Amnta.  The  things  were  probably  talismans  of  one 
sort  or  another. 

1  Proutdings^  Linnaean  Society  of  New  South  Wales,  1898,  toI.  sodii. 
part  3,  and  voL  xxvi.  p.  238. 


8o  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

remaiiii  after  they  came  to  be  inherited  in  the  male  line. 
In  the  same  way,  if  the  northern  tribes  had  once  been 
in  the  Arunta  state  of  belief,  their  totems  would  still  be 
in  both  exogamous  moieties,  and  would  not  regulate 
marriage.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  These  tribes,  there- 
fore, have  never  been  in  the  present  Arunta  condition. 
QM.D. 

The  Arunta  belief  is,  obviously,  an  elaboration  of  the 
belief  in  reincarnation,  not  held,  as  far  as  is  known,  by 
the  Dieri,  but  held  by  the  Urabunna,  and  by  all  tribes 
from  the  Urabunna  northwards  to  the  sea.  Mr.  Howitt 
does  not  mention  the  belief  among  the  south-eastern 
tribes.  But  there  is  a  kind  of  tendency  towards  it  among 
the  Euahlayi  of  north-west  New  South  Wales,  reported 
on  by  Mrs.  Langloh  Parker  (MS.).  This  tribe  reckons 
in  the  female  line,  has  phratries,  and  uses  the  class  names 
(four),  but  not  the  phratry  names  of  the  Kamilaroi.  Each 
individual  has  a  Minngak  tree  haunted  by  spirits  un- 
attached. Medicine  men  have  Minngah  rocks.  These 
answer  to  the  Arunta  Nanja  (Warramunga,  Mungai)  trees 
and  rocks  in  mortuary  local  totem-centres.  But  the 
MinngahAxt^  spirits  do  not  seek  reincarnation.  Only 
spirits  of  persons  dying  young,  before  initiation,  are 
reincarnated.  Fresh  souls  for  new  bodies  are  made  by 
the  Crow  and  the  Moon.  These  spirits,  when  "  made," 
hang  in  the  boughs  of  the  coolabak  tree  only,  not  round 
Minngah  trees  or  rocks. 

I  think  it  possible,  or  even  probable,  that  ideas  like 
those  of  the  Euahlayi  exist  among  the  southern  Arunta 
and  elsewhere.  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  give  a  Kaitish 
myth  of  two  men  "  who  arose  from  churinga^  and  heard 
Atnatu  (the  Kaitish  sky-dwelling  being,  the  father  of  some 
men)  making,  in  the  sky,  a  noise  with  his  churinga  (the 


ORIGIN  OF  CHILDREN  8i 

wooden  bull  roarer^  Now,  I  have  seen  the  statement, 
on  which  I  lay  no  stress,  that  in  extreme  south-west 
Aruntadom  a  sky-dwelling  Emu-footed  being  lost  two 
stone  churinga.  Out  of  one  sprang  a  man,  out  of  the 
other  a  woman.  They  had  ofiFspring,  ''but  not  by 
begetting." 

Among  the  tribes  with  the  reincarnation  belief  con- 
nubial relations  are  supposed  only  to  '^  prepare  the 
mother  for  the  reception  and  birth  also  of  an  already 
formed  spirit  child."*  This  apparent  ignorance  of 
physical  facts,  not  found  among  the  south-eastern 
tribes,  is  a  corollary  from  the  reincarnation  belief,  or 
from  the  other  belief  that  spirit  children  are  ''made" 
by  some  non-human  being.    (Cf.  Chapter  XI.) 

To  continue  with  the  statement  as  to  the  southern 
Arunta,  the  sky-dwelling  being  "  has  laid  germs  of  the 
little  boys  in  the  mistletoe  branches,  germs  of  little  girls 
among  the  split  stones  .  .  .  such  a  germ  of  a  child 
enters  a  woman  by  the  hip."  Now  among  the  Euahlayi, 
when  the  spirit  children  made  by  the  Crow  and  the 
Moon  are  weary  of  waiting  to  be  reincarnated,  they  are 
changed  into  mistletoe  branches. 

I  do  not  insist  on  the  alleged  sky-dwelling  being  of 
these  Arunta,  for  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  (in  their 
two  books)  have  not  found  him,  and  Mr.  Howitt  thinks 
that  his  name  arises  from  a  misunderstanding.  Kempe, 
a  missionary  of  1883,  speaks  of  "Altjira,  'god,'  who 
gives  the  children."'  Altjira,  "god,"  may  be  a  mistake, 
based  on  the  root  of  Akheringa  or  Altjiringa^  "dream." 
On   the  other   hand,   Mr.   Gillen   himself  credits  the 

*  NcrtJUm  THdes,  pp.  37a,  273, 

*  Cgntra/  Tribes,  p.  365. 

'  Gcognphical  Society  of  HallCa  ProemUngs^  18839  p.  53. 

P 


82  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Arunta  with  a  belief  in  a  sky-dwelling  being,  and  with 
a  creed  incompatible  with  the  faith  in  reincarnation,  as, 
in  this  Arunta  myth,  human  souls  are  not  reincarnated. 
This  information  we  quote. 

*'  Ulthaana 

''The  sky  is  said  to  be  inhabited  by  three  persons, 
a  gigantic  man  with  an  immense  foot  shaped  like  that 
of  an  emu,  a  woman,  and  a  child  who  never  develops 
beyond  childhood.  The  man  is  called  Ulthaana,  meaning 
'  spirit/  When  a  native  dies  his  spirit  is  said  to  ascend 
to  the  home  of  the  great  Ulthaana,  where  it  remains 
for  a  short  time ;  the  Ulthaana  then  throws  it  into  the 
Saltwater  (sea)  [these  natives  have  no  personal  know- 
ledge of  the  sea],  from  whence  it  is  rescued  by  two 
benevolent  but  lesser  Ulthaana  who  perpetually  reside 
on  the  seashore,  apparently  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
rescuing  spirits  who  have  been  subject  to  the  inhos* 
pitable  treatment  of  the  great  Ulthaana  of  the  heavens 
(alkirra).  Henceforth  the  spirit  of  the  dead  man 
lives  with  the  lesser  Ulthaana/'^  Is  it  possible  that 
Mr.  Gillen's  "  Great  Ulthaana  of  the  Heavens,  aiiirra," 
is  Kempe's  Altjira  ?  Or  can  he  be  a  native  modification 
of  Kempe's  own  theology  ?    Probably  not 

In  any  case  the  Arunta  of  Mr.  Gillen  who  do  not 
believe  in  reincarnation  cannot  possibly,  it  would  seem, 
possess  the  Arunta  form  of  totemism.  It  is  only  natural 
that  varieties  of  myth  and  belief  should  exist,  and  it  is 
asserted  that  there  is  a  myth  among  the  Arunta  of  the 
extreme  south-west  section  about  a  sky-dwelling  being, 

^  Notes  on  Some  Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Aborigines  of  the 
McDanneii  Ra$igts^  belonging  to  the  Arunia  Tribe,  Gillen,  Ham  Ex^ 
puHtwH,  iv.  p.  183. 


ARUNTA  CONTRADICTORY  BELIEFS        83 

whoi  like  the  Crow  and  the  Moon  of  Euahlayi  belief, 
makes  spirit  children,  and  places  them  in  the  mistletoe 
boughs.  The  story  that  the  first  man  and  woman 
sprang  from  two  of  this  being's  lost  churinga^  again,  is 
matched  by  the  Kaitish  story  of  two  men  who  rose  from 
ckuringa.  The  Arunta  described  by  Mr.  Gillen,  they 
whose  souls  dwell  with  '^  the  lesser  Ulthaana,''  no  more 
believe  in  reincarnation  than  do  the  south-eastern 
tribes.  These  variants  in  belief  and  myth  usually 
occur  among  savages. 

The  Arunta  add  to  the  reincarnation  myth,  the 
peculiarity  of  mortuary  local  totem-centres,  and  of  the 
attachment  of  the  spirit  to  a  stone  ckuringa  inscribed 
with  the  marks  of  that  totem,  and  from  these  peculiar 
ideas— as  much  isolated  as  the  peculiar  ideas  of  the 
Urabunna  or  the  Euahlayi — arises  the  non-exogamous 
character  of  Arunta  totemism.  No  otUi  out  of  such 
varying  freaks  of  belief,  can  be  regarded  as  primitive, 
more  than  another,  but  the  Arunta  variant,  for  the 
reason  repeatedly  given,  cannot  possibly  be  primitive. 

The  Arunta  totems  are  not  only  non-exogamous : 
their  actual  rcdstm  {Fitrtf  to-day,  is  to  exist  as  the  objects 
of  magical  co-operative  societies,  fostering  the  totem 
plants  and  animals  as  articles  of  tribal  food  supply. 
Mr.  Spencer  thinks  this  the  primary  purpose  of  totem 
societies,  everywhere.  Now  we  have'not,  as  yet,  been 
told  why  each  society  took  to  doing  magic  for  this  or 
that  animal  or  other  thing  in  nature.  They  cannot  have 
been  '^  charged  with  "  this  duty,  except  by  some  central 
authority.  As  there  did  not  yet  exist,  by  the  hypothesis, 
so  much  as  a  tribe  with  phratries,  what  can-this  central 
authority  have  been?  If  it  existed,  on  what  principle 
did  it  select,  out  of  the  horde,  groups  to  become  magical 


84  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

societies?  Were  they  groups  of  kin,  or  groups  of 
associates  by  contiguity  ?  On  what  principle  could  the 
choice  of  departments  of  nature  to  be  controlled  by 
each  group,  be  determined  by  the  central  authority? 
Had  the  groups  already  distinguishing  names — Emu, 
Eagle  Hawk,  Opossum,  &c. — ^how  did  these  names 
arise,  and  did  these  names  determine  the  department 
of  nature  for  which  each  group  was  allotted  to  do 
magic  ?  Or  did  authority  give  to  each  group  a  magical 
department,  and  did  the  nature  of  that  department 
determine  the  group-name,  such  as  Frogs,  Grubs,  Hakea 
Trees  ? 

Or  was  there  no  formal  distribution,  no  sudden 
organisation,  no  central  authority  ?  Did  a  casual  knot  of 
men,  or  a  firm  of  wizards,  say,  '^  Let  us  do  magic  for  the 
Kangaroo,  and  get  more  Kangaroos  to  eat "  ?  Was  their 
success  so  great  and  enviable  that  other  casual  knots  of 
men  or  firms  of  wizards  followed  their  example  ?  And, 
in  this  case,  why  do  Arunta  totemists  not  eat  their 
totems  freely  ?  Is  it  because  they  think  that  to  do  so 
would  frighten  the  totems,  and  make  them  recalcitrant 
to  their  magic  ?  But  that  cannot  be  the  case  if  their 
success,  while  they  worked  their  magic  on  their  own 
account,  was  great,  enviable,  and  generally  imitated. 
And,  if  it  was  not,  why  was  it  imitated  ?  Next,  how, 
among  the  magical  societies,  was  exogamy  introduced  ? 
Mr.  Spencer  writes:  "Our  knowledge  of  the  natives 
leads  us  to  the  opinion  that  this  really  took  place ;  that 
the  exogamic  groups  were  deliberately  introduced  so 
as  to  regulate  tnarital  regulations."  This  was,  then,  a 
Marriage  Reform  Act.  However,  Mr.  Spencer  hastens 
to  add  that  he  cannot  conceive  a  motive  for  the 
Marriage  Reform  Act.     '<We  do  not  mean  that  the 


EXOGAMY  NOT  EXPLAINED  85 

regulations  had  anything  whatever  to  do  with  the  idea 
of  incest,  or  of  any  harm  accruing  from  the  union  of 
individuals  who  were  regarded  as  too  nearly  related."  ^ 

We  have  shown  that  no  such  ideas  could  occur  to 
the  supposed  promiscuous  horde,  who  knew  not  that 
there  is  such  a  thing  as  procreation,  but  supposed  that, 
like  the  stars  in  Caliban's  philosophy,  children  ^'came 
otherwise."  Yet  the  "exogamic  system"  does  nothing 
but  prohibit  certain  marriages,  and  ''it  is  quite  possible 
that  the  exogamic  groups  were  deliberately  introduced 
so  as  to  regulate  marital  relations."' 

Mr.  Spencer's  theory  is,  then,  that  there  was  a  horde 
with  magical  totemic  societies,  how  evolved  we  cannot 
guess.  Across  that  came  the  arrangement  of  classes 
to  regulate  marriage,  as  it  does,  but  the  ancestors 
who  possibly  introduced  it  had,  he  says,  no  idea  that 
there  was  any  moral  or  material  harm  in  unregulated 
marriages.     Then  why  did  they  regulate  them? 

The  hypothetical  horde  of  the  kind  which  we  have 
described  had  no  marriage  relations,  and  had  no  possible 
reason  for  regulating  intersexual  relations. 

It  is  true  that  reformatory  movements  in  marriage 
law  are  actually  being  purposefully  introduced,  among 
tribes  which,  possessing  already  such  laws,  of  unknown 
origin,  to  reform,  have  deduced  from  these  laws  them- 
selves that  there  is  a  right  and  wrong  in  matters  of  sex. 
Certainly,  too,  much  of  savage  marriage  law  is  of  ancient 
and  purposeful  institution.  But  the  question  is,  not 
how  moral  laws,  once  developed,  might  be  improved ; 

V- -^- A  N.S.,  p.  278. 

*  Ibid.,  i.  pp.  284,  285.  Dr.  Roth  hu  oonjectnred  that  phiatriet  wtie 
faitiodnced  "ly  a  proceu  of  natmal  selectioa"  to  regulate  the  food  lupplj. 
Bat  how  did  they  come  to  reguUte  marriage?  {AborigiMes  rf North-Wist 
Central  Quunskmd^  pp.  69,  7a) 


86  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

but  how  a  tabu  law  against  sexual  relations  between 
near  kin  could  even  be  so  much  as  dreamed  of  by 
members  of  a  communal  horde,  who  had  no  idea  of 
kiui  and  could  not  possibly  tell  who  was  akin  to  whom. 
Ce  fiest  que  U  premier  pas  qui  coAtet  We  must  account 
for  le  premier  pasn 

Again,  the  Intichiuma^  or  co-operative  totemic  magic, 
of  the  Arunta,  regarded  by  our  authors  as  "primary," 
is  nowhere  reported  of  the  tribes  of  the  south  and  east. 
Mr.  Howitt  asserts  its  absence.  The  lack  of  record, 
say  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen,  "is  no  proof  that 
these  ceremonies  did  not  exist."  If  they  did,  how  could 
they  escape  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Howitt,  an  initiated 
man  ?  ^  As  a  fact,  when  you  leave  the  centre,  and  reach 
the  north  sea-coast,  totemic  magic  dwindles,  and  nearly 
disappears.  Among  the  coast  tribes  of  the  north, 
the  Intichiuma  magic  is  "very  slightly  developed."  Its 
faint  existence  is  '' doubtless  to  be  associated  with  the 
fact  that  they  inhabit  country  where  the  food  supply  and 
general  conditions  of  life  are  more  favourable  than  in 
the  central  area  of  the  continent  which  is  the  home  of 
these  ceremonies."  But  surely  the  regions  of  the  south 
and  east,  where  there  is  no  Intichiuma^  are  also  better  in 
supply  and  {general  conditions  than  the  centre.  Why 
then  should  the  apparent  absence  of  Intichiuma  in  the 
south  and  east  be  due  to  want  of  observation  and  record, 
while  the  "very  slight  development"  of  Intichiuma  on 
the  north  coast  is  otherwise  explained,  namely,  by  con- 
ditions— ^which  also  exist  in  the  south  ! 

Moreover,  co-operative  and  totemic  magic  is  most 
elaborately  organised  among  the  Sioux,  Dakotah,  Omaha, 
and  other  American  tribes,  where  supplies  are  infinitely 

^  See  Northern  Tribts^  pp.  ziii,  xiv,  173. 


MAGIC  FOR  FOOD  SUPPLY  87 

better  than  in  any  part  of  Australia,^  and  agriculture  has 
there,  as  in  Europe,  a  copious  magic.  Magic,  as  a  well- 
known  fact,  is  most  and  best  organised  in  the  most 
advanced  non-scientific  societies.  In  Australia  it  is 
most  organised  in  the  centre,  and  dwindles  as  you  move 
either  north,  south,  or  east.  This  implies  that,  socially, 
the  centre  is  in  this  respect  most  advanced  and  least 
primitive;  while  magic,  partly  totemic,  is  highly  orga- 
nised in  the  much  more  prosperous  islands  of  the  Torres 
Straits,  and  in  America. 

It  is  true  that  Collins  (1798),  a  very  early  observer, 
saw  east-coast  natives  performing  ceremonies  connected 
with  Kangaroos,  in  one  of  which  a  Kangaroo  hunt  was 
imitated.  Collins  believed  that  this  was  imitative  magic 
of  a  familiar  kind,  done  to  secure  success  in  the  chase. 
In  Magic  and  Religion^  p.  100,  I  express  the  same 
opinion.  But  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  write,  as  to 
the  magic  observed  by  Collins,  ''There  can  be  little 
doubt  but  that  these  ceremonies,  so  closely  similar  in 
their  nature  to  those  now  performed  by  the  central  natives, 
were  totemic  in  their  origin  " — they  may  be  regarded  as 
''  clear  evidence  of  the  existence  of  these  totemic  cere- 
monies •  •  •  in  a  tribe  living  right  on  the  eastern  coast"  * 

Really  the  evidence  of  Collins,  on  analysis,  is  found 
to  describe  (i.)  a  Dog  dance ;  (ii.)  a  native  carrying  a 
Kangaroo  effigy  made  of  grass ;  (iii.)  a  Kangaroo  hunt. 
Nothing  proves  the  working  of  totemic  ceremonies :  the 
point  is  not  established.  Collins  saw  a  hunt  dance,  not 
a  ceremony  whose  ''  sole  object  was  the  purpose  of  in- 
creasing the  number  of  the  animal  or  plant  after  which 

1  Doney,  Ofnaka  Sociology.  Siotum  Cults.  Bunau  of  Ethnology^  1881- 
1882,  pp.  a^iS,  339;  1889-1890^  p.  537.  Fmer,  ToUmism,  p.  24.  For 
Tones  Islands,/.  A.  /.,  N.Sn  i*  pp«  5-17. 

*  Norikmm  Tribes^  pp.  224,  225. 


88  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

the  totem  is  called/'  and  to  do  thai  is  the  aim  of  the 
Intickiuma^  The  hunt  dances  seen  by  Collins  were  just 
those  seen  by  Mr.  Howitt  at  an  initiation  ceremony.'  In 
the  Emu  Inttchiuma  of  the  Arunta  the  Emus  are  repre- 
sented by  men,  but  no  Emu  hunt  is  exhibited,  and 
women  are  allowed  to  see  the  imitators  of  the  fowls.' 
The  ceremonies  reported  by  Collins  were  done  at  an 
initiation  of  boys,  which  ''the  women  of  course  were 
not  allowed  to  see."  * 

Apparently  we  have  not  ''clear  evidence"  that  Collins 
saw  Inttchiuma^  or  totemic  co-operative  magic,  in  the 
south,  and  Mr.  Howitt  asserts  and  tries  to  explain  its 
absence  there. 

It  is,  of  course,  perfectly  natural  that  men,  when 
once  they  come  to  believe  in  a  mystic  connection 
between  certain  human  groups  and  certain  animals, 
should  do  magic  for  these  animals.  But,  in  point  of 
fact,  we  do  not  find  the  practice  in  the  more  primitively 
organised  tribes  outside  the  Arunta  sphere  of  influence, 
and  we  do  find  the  practice  most,  and  most  highly  orga- 
nised, in  tribes  of  advanced  type,  in  America  and  the 
Torres  Isles,  quite  irrespective  of  the  natural  abundance 
of  supplies,  which  is  supposed  to  account  for  the  very 
slight  development  of  Inttchiuma  on  the  north  coast  of 
Australia. 

I  cannot  agree  with  Mr.  Hartland  in  supposing  that 
the  barren  nature  of  the  Arunta  country  forced  the 
Arunta  to  do  magic  for  their  totems.  The  country  is 
not  so  bare  as  to  prevent  large  assemblies,  busy  with 
many  ceremonials,  from  holding  together  during  four 

^  Spencer  and  Gillen,  p.  169. 

*  Natives  tfSomtk^Roit  AuUraUa,  p.  545. 

*  Spencer  and  Gillen,  pp.  183,  183. 
«  Ncrtktm  TriUst  p.  225. 


SUPPLIES  AND  RITES  89 

consecutive  months,  while  Mr.  Howitt's  south-eastern 
tribes,  during  a  ceremonial  meeting  which  lasted  only 
for  a  week,  needed  the  white  man's  tea,  mutton,  and 
bread.  If  fertile  land  makes  agricultural  magic  super- 
fluous, why  does  Europe  abound  in  agricultural  magic  ? 
Among  the  Arunta,  the  totem  names,  deserting  kinships, 
clung  to  local  groups,  and  with  the  names  went  the  belief 
that  the  inhabitants  of  the  locality  or  the  bearers  of 
the  names  had  a  special  rapport  with  the  name-giving 
animals  or  plants.  This  rapport  was  utilised  in  magic 
for  the  behoof  of  these  objects,  and  for  the  good  of  the 
tribe,  which  is  singularly  solidaire. 

We  trust  we  have  shown  that  the  primal  origin  of 
totemic  institutions  cannot  be  found  in  the  very  peculiar 
and  strangely  modified  totemism  of  the  Arunta,  and  of 
their  congeners.  Their  marriage  law,  to  repeat  our 
case  briefly,  now  reposes  solely  on  the  familiar  and 
confessedly  late  system  of  exogamous  alternating  classes, 
as  among  other  northern  tribes.  The  only  difference  is 
that  the  totems  are  now  (and  nowhere  else  is  this  the 
case),  in  both  of  the  exogamous  moieties,  denoted  by  the 
classes,  and  they  are  in  both  moieties  because,  owing  to 
the  isolated  belief  in  reincarnation  of  A?ai/ ghosts,  attached 
to  stone  amulets,  they  are  acquired  by  accident,  not,  as 
elsewhere,  by  inheritance.  A  man  who  does  not  inherit 
his  father's  totem  because  of  the  accident  of  his  concep- 
tion in  a  local  centre  of  another  totem,  does,  none  the 
less,  inherit  his  totemic  ceremonies  and  rites.  Totemism 
is  thus  enpleine  dicadence  among  the  Arunta,  from  whom, 
consequently,  nothing  can  be  learned  as  to  the  origin  of 
totemism. 


90  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 


NOTE 

The  Aiunta  legends  of  the  Akkeriftgu  usually  describe  the  various 
wandering  groups,  all,  in  each  case^  of  one  totem,  as  living  exclusively 
for  long  periods  on  their  own  totems,  plants,  or  animals.  This  cannot 
be  historically  true;  many  plants,  and  such  animals  as  grubs,  are  in 
season  for  but  a  brief  time.  On  the  other  hand,  we  meet  a  legend  of 
women  of  the  Quail  totem  who  lived  exclusively,  not  on  quaDs,  but  on 
grass  seeds.^  Again,  in  only  one  case  are  men  of  the  AckHpOy  or 
Wild  Cat  totem,  said  to  have  eaten  anything,  and  what  they  ate  was 
the  Hakea  flower.  Later  they  became  Plum  men,  Ulpmerka^  but  are 
not  said  to  have  eaten  plums.  In  a  note  i(Note  i,  p.  219)  Messrs. 
Spencer  and  GiUen  say  that  ''Wild  Cat  men  are  represented  con- 
stantly as  feeding  on  plums.*  They  are  never  said  to  have  eaten 
their  own  totem,  the  Wild  Cat,  which  is  forbidden  to  all  Arunta, 
though  old  men  may  eat  a  little  of  it  Reasons,  not  totemic,  are  given 
for  the  avoidance.*  We  are  not  told  anything  about  the  Iniickiuma 
or  magical  rites  for  the  increase  of  the  Wild  Cat,  which  is  not  eaten. 
Are  they  performed  by  men  of  the  Wild  Cat  totem  ?  The  old  men 
of  the  totem  might  eat  very  sparingly  of  the  Wild  Cat,  at  their 
Jntichtuma^  but  certainly  the  members  of  other  totems  who  were 
present  would  not  eat  at  alL  The  use  of  a  Wild  Cat  InUchiuma  is 
not  obvious :  there  is  no  desire  to  propagate  the  animal  as  an  article 
of  food. 

1  NoHm  TrOis  of  Central  Australia,  p.  417.  *  Ibid.,  p.  168. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  THEORIES   OF  DR.  DURKHEIM 

Theories  of  Dr.  Durkheim — Was  man  originaUy  promiscuous? — Difficulty  of 
ascertaining  Dr.  Durkheim's  opinion — Apparent  contradictions — Origin 
of  totemism — A  horde,  which  did  not  prohibit  incest,  splits  into  two 
"primary  clans" — These  are  hostile — Each  has  an  animal  god,  and  its 
members  are  of  the  blood  oi  the  god,  consubstantial  with  him — ^Therefore 
may  not  intermarry  within  his  blood — Hence  exogamy — These  gods,  or 
totems,  "cannot  be  .changed  at  will" — Questions  as  to  how  these  beUe6 
arise — Why  does  the  united  horde  choose  different  gods? — Why  only  two 
such  gods? — Uncertainty  as  to  whether  Dr.  Durkheim  believes  m  the 
incestuous  horde — ^Theory  of  "  coUectiTe  marriage,"  a  "  last  resource  " — 
The  "primary  clans"  said  to  have  "no  territorial  basb"— Later  it  is 
assumed  that  they  do  have  territorial  bases— Which  they  OTerpopulate — 
Colonies  sent  fordi — ^These  take  new  totems — Proof  that  an  exogamous 
"  dan"  has  no  territorial  basis — ^And  cannot  send  out  "clan "  colonies — 
Colonies  can  only  be  tridal-^Ho  proof  that  a  "  clan "  ever  does  change 
its  totem — Dr.  Durkheim's  defence  of  one  of  his  apparent  inconsistencies — 
Reply  to  his  defence— Mr.  Frazer's  theory  (1887)  that  a  totemic  '*  clan  " 
throws  off  other  clans  of  new  totems,  and  becomes  a  phratry— Objections 
to  this  theory — ^The  fiicts  are  opposed  to  it — Examples — ^Recapitulation— 
Eight  objections  to  Dr.  Durkheim's  theory. 

Dr.  Durkheim,  Professor  of  Sociology  in  the  University 
of  Bordeaux,  has  displayed  much  acuteness  in  his  destruc- 
tive analysis  of  the  Arunta  claims  to  possess  a  primitive 
form  of  totemism.^  He  has  also  given  the  fullest  and 
most  original  explanation  of  the  reason  why,  granting 
that  groups  of  early  men  had  each  a  special  regard  for  a 
particular  animal  or  plant,  whose  name  they  bore,  they 
tabooed  marriage  within  that  name.' 

With   these  and  other  merits    the    system  of    Dr. 

*  VAnnh  SoeioUgiqut^  ▼.  pp.  82-141.  *  Ibid.,  i.  pp.  35-57. 

9« 


92  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Durkheim,  as  unfolded  at  intervals  in  his  periodical 
{V Annie  Saciologiquet  1898-1904),  has,  I  shall  txy  to  show, 
certain  drawbacks,  at  least  as  we  possess  it  at  present, 
for  it  has  not  yet  appeared  in  the  form  of  a  book.  As 
to  the  point  which  in  this  discussion  we  have  taken 
first,  throughout,  it  is  not  easy  to  be  certain  about  the 
Professor's  exact  opinion.  What  was  the  condition  of 
human  society  before  totemic  exogamy  was  evolved? 
Dr.  Durkheim  writes,  ''  Many  facts  tend  to  prove  that, 
at  the  beginning  of  societies  of  men,  incest  was  not 
forbidden.  Nothing  authorises  us  to  suppose  that  incest 
was  prohibited  before  each  horde  {peuplade)  divided 
itself  into  two  primitive  'clans,'  at  least"  (namely,  what 
we  now  call  " phratries "),  "for  the  first  form  of  the 
prohibition  known  to  us,  exogamy,  everywhere  appears 
as  correlative  to  this  organisation,  and  certainly  this  is 
not  primitive.  Society  must  have  formed  a  compact 
and  undivided  mass  before  bisecting  itself  into  two 
distinct  groups,  and  some  of  Morgan's  tables  of  nomen- 
clature" (of  relationships)  "confirm  this  hypothesis."* 

So  far  this  is  the  ordinary  theory.  An  undivided 
promiscuous  horde,  for  reasons  of  moral  reformation, 
or  any  other  reason,  splits  itself  into  two  exogamous 
''clans,"  or  germs  of  the  phratries.  These,  when  they 
cease  to  be  hostile  (as  they  were  on  Dr.  Durkheim's  but 
not  on  Mr.  Howitt's  theory),  peacefully  intermarry,  and 
become  the  phratries  in  a  local  tribe. 

Why  did  the  supposed  compact  horde  thus  divide 
itself  into  two  distinct  hostile  "clans,"  each,  on  Dr. 
Durkheim's  theory,  claiming  descent  from  a  different 
animal,  the  totem  of  each  "clan"?  Why  were  two 
bodies  in  the  same  horde  claiming  two  different  animal 

>  V Annie  SocUtogifu$^  L  pp.  62,  63. 


QUESTION   FOR  bR.  DURKHEIM  93 

ancestors  ?  Why  were  the  two  divisions  in  a  common 
horde  mutually  hostile?  That  they  were  originally 
hostile  appears  when  our  author  says  that,  at  a  given 
stage  of  advance,  ''the  different  totemic  groups  were 
no  longer  strangers  or  enemies,  one  of  the  other."  ^ 
Marriages,  at  this  early  period,  must  necessarily  have 
been  made  by  warlike  capture,  for  the  two  groups  were 
hostile,  were  exogamous,  and,  being  hostile,  would  not 
barter  brides  peacefully.  Women,  therefore,  we  take  it, 
could  only  be  obtained  for  each  group  by  acts  of  war. 
^'Ages  passed  before  the  exchange  of  women  became 
peaceful  and  regular.  What  vendettas,  what  bloodshed, 
what  laborious  negotiations  were  for  long  the  result  of 
thisn^Vw/"« 

But  why  were  they  exogamous,  these  two  primary 
groups  formed  by  the  bisection  of  a  previously  undivided 
incestuous  horde?  Why  could  not  each  of  the  two 
groups  marry  its  own  women  ?  There  must  have  been 
a  time  when  they  were  not  exogamous,  and  could  marry 
their  own  women,  for  they  were  only  exogamous,  in 
Dr.  Durkheim's  theory,  because  they  were  totemic,  and 
they  did  not  begin  by  being  totemic.  The  totem,  says 
Dr.  Durkheim,  in  explanation  of  exogamy,  is  a  ''god" 
who  is  in  each  member  of  his  group  while  they  are  in 
him.    He  is  blood  of  their  blood  and  soul  of  their  soul.' 

^  Dr.  Dnrkheim  here  introduoes  a  theory  of  Aninta  totemic  magic.  As 
he  justly  says,  the  oo-operatire  principle— each  group  in  a  tribe  doing  magic 
for  the  good  of  all  the  other  groaps— cannot  be  primitiTe.  The  object  of  the 
magic,  he  thinks,  was  to  maintain  in  good  condition  the  totems,  which  axe 
the  gods,  of  the  groups,  and,  indeed,  *'  the  condition  of  their  existence." 
Later,  ideas  altered,  ancotral  souls,  reincarnated,  were  the  source  of  life,  but 
the  totemic  magic  surrived  with  a  new  purpose,  as  Magical  Co-operatiTe 
Stores.  But  why  haye  the  more  primitiTe  tribes  no  totem  magic?  {L'AmUi 
Soaokeiqui^  ▼.  pp.  1 1 7,  Ii8,  119.) 

*  LAnnit  Soctplogiqui^  L  p.  64. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  51,  52. 


94  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

This  being  so— as  it  is  wrong  to  shed  the  blood  of  our 
kindred — a  man  of  totem  Emu,  say,  may  not  marry  a 
maid  of,  say,  totem  Emu ;  he  must  seek  a  bride  from 
the  only  other  group  apparently  at  this  stage  accessible, 
that  is  a  maid  of,  say,  totem  Kangaroo.  Presently  all 
Kangaroos  of  a  generation  must  have  been  Emus  by 
female  descent;  all  Emus,  Kangaroos;  for  the  names 
were  inherited  through  women.  The  clans  wei^e  thus 
inextricably  blended,  and  neither  had  a  separate  territory, 
a  point  to  be  remembered. 

Manifestly  the  strange  superstitious  metaphysics  of 
totemism  must  have  occupied  a  long  time  in  evolution. 
The  sacredness  of  the  totem  is  the  result  of  a  primitive 
''religiosity,"  Dr.  Durkheim  says,  which  existed  before 
gods  or  other  mythological  personages  had  been  de- 
veloped. There  is  supposed  by  early  man  (according 
to  our  author)  to  be  a  kind  of  universal  element  of 
power,  dreadful  and  divine,  which  attaches  to  some 
things  more  than  to  others,  to  some  men  more  than  to 
others,  and  to  all  women  in  their  relations  with  men.^ 
This  mystic  something  (rather  like  the  Mana  of  the 
Maories,  and  the  Wakan  of  many  North  American 
tribes)  is  believed  by  each  group  (if  I  correctly  under- 
stand Dr.  Durkheim)  to  concentrate  itself  in  their  name- 
giving  animal,  their  totem.'  All  tabu,  all  blood  tabu, 
has  in  the  totem  animal  its  centre  and  shrine,  in  the 
opinion  of  each  group.  Human  kinship,  of  Emu  man 
to  Emu  woman,  is,  if  I  understand  rightly,  a  corollary 
from  their  common  kinship  with  the  Emu  bird;  or 
rather  the  sacredbiess  of  their  kinship,  not  to  be  violated 

1  VAnmU  Sociohgiqut^  i.  pp.  38-57. 

*  Ibid.,  L  pp.  38-53;  >.fpp.  87,  88.  '*Le  canctire  sacr^  est  d'abord 
diffiis  dans  les  choses  avant  de  se  concr^tiser  sons  la  fonne  des  personality 
detenninte." 


DURKHEIM  ON  TOTEMS  95 

by  marriage,  is  thus  derived ;  an  opinion  which  I 
share. 

How  all  this  came  to  be  so ;  why  each  of  two  "  clans  " 
in  one  horde  chose,  or  acquired,  a  given  animal  as  the 
centre  of  the  mysterious  sacred  atmosphere,  Dr.  Durk- 
heim  has  not,  so  far,  told  us.  Yet  surely  there  must 
have  been  a  reason  for  selecting  two  special  animals, 
one  for  each  of  the  two  **  clans,"  as  the  tabu,  the  totem,  the 
god.  Moreover,  as  such  a  strange  belief  cannot  be  an 
innate  idea  of  tlie  human  mind,  and  as  this  belief,  with 
its  corollaries,  is,  in  Dr.  Durkheim's  theory,  the  sole 
origin  of  exogamy,  there  must  have  been  a  time  when 
men,  not  having  the  belief,  were  not  exogamous,  and 
when  their  sexual  relations  were  wholly  unregulated. 
They  only  came  under  regulation  after  two  *'  clans  "  of 
people,  in  a  horde,  took  to  revering  two  different  sacred 
animals,  according  to  Dr.  Durkheim. 

The  totem,  he  says,  is  not  only  the  god,  but  the 
ancestor  of  the  ''clan/'  and  this  ancestor,  says  Dr. 
Durkheim,  is  not  a  species — animal  or  vegetable — but 
is  such  or  such  an  individual  Emu  or  Kangaroo.  This 
individual  Emu  or  Kangaroo,  however,  is  not  alive,  he  is 
a  creature  of  fancy ;  he  is  a  ''  mythical  being,  whence 
came  forth  at  once  all  the  human  members  of  the  '  clan,' 
and  the  plants  or  animals  of  the  totem  species.  Within 
him  exist,  potentially,  the  animal  species  and  the  human 
'  clan  *  of  the  same  name."  ^ 

"Thus,"  Dr.  Durkheim  goes  on, "  the  totemic  being  is 
immanent  in  the  clan,  he  is  incarnate  in  each  individual 
member  of  the  clan,  and  dwells  in  their  blood.  He  is 
himself  that  blood.  But,  while  he  is  an  ancestor,  he  is 
also  a  god,  he  is  the  object  of  a  veritable  cult ;  he  is  the 

1  VAnnh  Sociokgiqm^  i.  ^  51,  and  Note  I. 


96  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

centre  of  the  clangs  religion,  •  .  •  Therefore  there  is  a 
god  in  each  individual  member  of  the  clan  (for  the 
entire  god  is  in  each),  and,  as  he  lives  in  the  blood,  the 
blood  is  divine.  When  the  blood  flows,  the  god  is 
shed"  {U  dieu  se  ripand). 

All  this,  of  course,  was  the  belief  (if  ever  it  was  the 
belief)  when  totemism  was  in  its  early  bloom  and  vigour, 
for  to-day  a  black  will  shoot  his  totem,  but  not  sitting ; 
and  will  eat  it  if  he  can  get  nothing  else,  and  Mr. 
Howitt  mentions  cases  in  which  he  will  eat  his  totem  if 
another  man  bags  iU  The  Euahlayi,  with  female  kin, 
eat  their  totems,  after  a  ceremony  in  which  the  tabu  is 
removed.*  Totemism  is  thus  decadent  to-day.  But  "a 
totem  is  not  a  thing  which  men  think  they  can  dispose 
of  at  their  will,  at  least  so  long  as  totemic  beliefs  are  still 
in  vigour.  ...  A  totem,  in  short,  is  not  a  mere  name^ 
but  before  all  and  above  all,  he  is  a  religious  principle, 
which  is  one  and  consubstantial  with  the  person  in  whom 
it  has  its  dwelling-place ;  it  makes  part  of  his  personality. 
One  can  no  more  change  one's  totem  than  one  can 
change  one's  soul.  .  .  ."'  He  is  speaking  of  Arunta 
society  on  the  eve  of  a  change  from  female  to  male 
reckoning  of  descent. 

So  far,  the  theory  of  Dr.  Durkheim  is  that  in  a 
compact  communal  horde,  where  incest  was  not  pro- 
hibited, one  "  clan  "  or  division  took  to  adoring,  say,  the 
Eagle  Hawk,  another  set  the  Crow ;  to  claiming  descent 
each  from  their  bird ;  to  regarding  his  blood  as  tabu ;  to 
seizing  wives  only  from  the  other  "clan" ;  and,  finally,  to 
making  peaceful  intermarriages,  each,  exclusively,  only 

1  For  other  rules  see  Spencer  and  Gilleni  Nbrth4m  Tribes^  pp.  320-328. 

*  MS.  of  Mrs.  Langloh  Parker. 

*  VAnnii  Sociohgiqtu^  ▼.  pp.  1 10,  III. 


DIFFICULTIES  97 

from  the  other  set.  Eagle  Hawk  from  Crow,  Crow  from 
Eagle  Hawk.  We  do  not  learn  why  half  the  horde 
adored  one,  and  the  other  half  another  animal.  If  the  dis- 
ruption of  the  horde  produced  two  such  "clans,"  "at  least," 
there  may  have  been  other  "clans,"  sets  equally  primal, 
as  Lizard,  Ant,  Wallaby,  Grub.  About  these  we  hear 
nothing  more  in  the  theory ;  the  two  "  primary  clans " 
alone  are  here  spoken  of  as  original,  and  are  obviously 
the  result  of  a  mere  conjecture,  to  explain  the  two 
phratries  of  animal  name,  familiar  in  our  experience. 

No  attempt  is  made  to  explain  either  why  members 
of  the  sami  horde  chose  separate  animal  gods ;  or  why — 
unless  because  of  consequent  religious  differences — ^the 
two  "clans,"  previously  united,  were  now  hostile;  or 
why  there  were  at  first  only  two  such  religious  hostile 
''clans";  or,  if  there  were  more,  what  became  of  the 
others. 

Meanwhile,  we  are  not  even  sure  that  Dr.  Durkheim 
does  believe  in  a  primary  incestuous  horde,  when 
"  Society  must  have  formed  a  compact  undivided  mass 
•  .  .  before  splitting  into  two  distinct  groups,  and  some 
of  Morgan's  tables  of  nomenclature  corroborate  this 
hypothesis."  ^  It  is  true  that  Dr.  Durkheim  makes  this 
assertion.  But,  in  the  same  volume  (i.  p.  332),  Dr. 
Durkheim  tells  us  that  Mr.  Morgan's  theory  of  obligatory 
promiscuity  (a  theory  based,  as  we  saw  in  Chapter  II.,  on 
the  terms  of  relationship)  "  seems  to  us  to  be  definitely 
refuted."  Again,  Mr.  Morgan,  like  Mr.  Howitt  and  Mr. 
Spencer,  regarded  the  savage  terms  for  relationships  as 
one  proof  of  "group  marriage,"  or  "  collective  marriage," 
including  unions  of  the  nearest  of  kin.  (Compare  our 
Chapter  II  I.)    But  Dr.  Durkheim  writes,  ''The  hypothesis 

^  VAmU$  SoeiologipUi  L  p.  63. 

O 


98  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

of  collective  marriage  has  never  been  more  than  a  last 
resource,  intended  to  enable  us  to  envisage  these  strange 
customs :  but  it  is  impossible  to  overlook  all  the  diffi- 
culties which  it  raises  •  •  •  this  improbable  conception/'  ^ 

Is  it  possible  that,  after  many  times  reading  the 
learned  Professor's  work,  I  misunderstand  him  ?  With 
profound  regret  I  gather  that  he  does  not  believe  in  the 
theory  of  "obligatory  promiscuity"  in  an  undivided 
horde,  which  I  have  supposed  to  be  the  basis  of  his 
system ;  a  horde  "in  which  there  is  nothing  to  show  that 
incest  was  forbidden*"  That  incest,  in  Mr.  Morgan's 
theory,  was  "obligatory,"  I  cannot  suppose,  because, 
if  nobody  knew  who  was  akin  to  whom,  nothing  could 
compel  a  man  to  marry  his  own  sister  or  daughter.  I 
am  obliged  to  fear  that  I  do  not  understand  what  is 
meant  For  Dr.  Durkheim  made  society  begin  in  a 
united  solid  ptuplade^  in  which  "there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  incest  was  forbidden,"  and  as  proof  he  cited 
some  of  Mr.  Morgan^s  tables  of  relationships.  He  then 
gave  his  theory  of  how  exogamy  was  introduced  into 
the  ''compact  undivided  mass."  He  next  appears  to 
reject  this  ''  mass,"  and  Morgan's  argument  for  its  exist- 
ence. Is  there  an  inconsistency,  or  do  I  merely  fail  to 
understand  Dr.  Durkheim  ? 

Let  us,  however,  take  Dr.  Durkheim's  theory  of  a 
horde  with  ''permissive"  incest,  split,  for  some  reason, 
into  two  distinct  hostile  "clans"  worshipping  each  its 
own  "god,"  an  animal;  each  occupying  a  different 
territory;  reckoning  by  female  kin;  exogamous,  and 
intermarrying.  Such  communities,  exogamous,  inter- 
marrying, and  with  female  descent,  Dr.  Durkheim 
uniformly    styles    "primary    clans,"    or    "elementary 

'  VAmUs  Soeiol0giqu4^  I  {k  3x8. 


THE  "CLAN"  NOT  TERRITORIAL         99 

totemic  groups."  ^  It  is  obvious  that  they  constitute, 
when  once  thoroughly  amalgamated  by  exogamy  and 
peaceful  intermarriage,  a  local  tribe^  with  a  definite  j(nnt 
territory,  and  without  clan  territory.  At  every  hearth, 
through  the  whole  tribal  domain,  both  clans  are 
present;  the  male  mates  are,  say,  Eagle  Hawks,  the 
women  and  children  are  Crows,  or  viu  versa.  Neither 
''clan"  as  such  ''has  any  longer  a  territorial  basis." 
"The  clan,"  says  Dr.  Durkheim,  "has  no  territorial 
basis."  "The  clan  is  an  amorphous  group,  a  floating 
mass,  with  no  very  defined  individuality;  its  contours, 
especially,  have  no  material  marks  on  the  soil."'  This 
is  as  true  as  it  is  obvious.  The  clans,  when  once 
thoroughly  intermixed,  and  with  members  of  each  clan 
present,  as  father,  mother,  and  children,  by  every  hearth, 
can,  as  clans,  have  no  local  limits,  no  territorial 
boundaries,  and  Dr.  Durkheim  maintains  this  fact 
Indeed,  he  distinguishes  the  clan  from  the  tribe  as 
being  non-territarialf 

Yet  though  he  thus  asserts  what  every  one  must  see 
to  be  true,  his  whole  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  totem 
kins  ("secondary  clans")  within  the  phratries,  and  his 
theory  (as  we  shall  show  later)  of  the  matrimonial 
classes,  rests  on  the  contradictory  of  his  averment.  He 
then  takes  the  line  that  the  exogamous  clans  with  female 
descent  do,  or  did,  possess  definite  separate  territorial 
bases,  which  seems  contrary  to  the  passage  where  he 
says  that  they  do  not !  ^    He  has  reversed  his  position. 

We  first  gave  Dr.  Durkheim's  statement  as  to  how 
the  totem  kins  (which  he  calls  "secondary  clans")  came 
to  exist  within  the  phratries. 

'  VAnnii  Socidogique,  t.  pp.  91,  92.  *  Ibid,  L  p.  aa 

»  IWd.,  L  p.  6.  *  Ibid.,  i.  p.  6. 


loo         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

**  When  a  clan  increases  beyond  a  certain  measure,  its 
population  cannot  exist  within  the  same  space :  it  there- 
fore throws  o£F  colonies,  which,  as  they  no  longer  occupy 
the  same  habitat  with,  nor  share  the  interests  of  the 
original  group  from  which  they  emerged,  end  by  taking 
a  totem  which  is  all  their  own :  thenceforth  they  con* 
stitute  new  clans."*  Again,  ''the  phratry  is  a  primary 
clan,  which,  as  it  develops,  has  been  led  to  segment 
itself  into  a  certain  number  of  secondary  clans,  which 
retain  their  sentiment  of  community  and  of  soldidarity/'* 

All  this  is  (as  far  as  I  can  see),  by  Dr.  Durkheim's 
own  previous  statement,  impossible.  A  totemic  clan, 
ezogamous,  with  female  descent,  cannot,  as  a  clan, 
overflow  its  limits  of  ''  space,"  for,  as  a  clan,  he  tells  us, 
it ''  has  no  territorial  basis,"  no  material  assigned  frontier, 
marked  on  the  soil.'  ''One  cannot  say  at  what  precise 
point  of  space  it  begins,  or  where  it  ends."  The  members 
of  one  ''  clan  "  are  indissolubly  blended  with  the  members 
of  the  other  **  clan,"  in  the  local  tribe.  This  point,  always 
overlooked  by  the  partisans  of  a  theory  that  the  various 
totem  kins  are  segments  of  ''a  primary  clan,"  can  be 
made  plain.  By  the  hypothesis  there  are  two  ''  clans " 
before  us,  of  which  Eagle  Hawk  (male)  always  marries 
Crow  (female),  their  children  being  Crows,  and  Crow 
(male)  always  marries  Eagle  Hawk  (female),  the  children 
being  Eagle  Hawks.  The  tribal  territory  is  over-popu- 
lated (the  dan  has  no  territory).  A  tribal  decree  is  there- 
fore passed,  that  clan  Eagle  Hawk  must  ''segment  itself," 
and  go  to  new  lands.    This  decree  means  that  a  portion 

^  VAfmi€  Soeiolcgiqus^  L  p.  6. 

*  Ibid.,  T.  p.  91. 

>  Ibid.,  L  p.  2a  The  thing  would  only  be  possible  if  the  two  "dans" 
were  not  yet  exogamons  and  intennarrying ;  but  then  they  would  not  be 
'*  dans,"  by  the  definition ! 


SEGMENTATION  OF  "CLAN"  IMPOSSIBLE    loi 

of  clan  Eagle  Hawk  must  emigrate.  Let,  then,  Eagle 
Hawk  men,  women,  and  children,  to  the  amount  of  half 
of  the  clan,  be  selected  to  emigrate.  They  go  forth  to 
seek  new  abodes.  In  doing  so  the  Eagle  Hawk  men 
leave  their  Crow  wives  at  home;  the  Eagle  Hawk 
women  leave  their  Crow  children,  and  Crow  husbands ; 
the  Eagle  Hawk  children  leave  their  Crow  fathers.  Not 
a  man  or  woman  in  the  segmented  portion  of  clan  Eagle 
Hawk  can  now  have  a  wife  or  a  husband,  for  they  can 
only  marry  Crows.  They  all  die  out  1  Such  is  the  result 
of  segmenting  clan  Eagle  Hawk. 

Yet  the  thing  can  be  managed  in  no  other  way,  for, 
if  the  emigrant  Eagle  Hawk  men  take  with  them  their 
Crow  wives  and  children,  they  cannot  marry  (unless 
men  marry  their  daughters.  Crows)  when  they  become 
widowers,  and  unless  Crow  brothers  marry  Crow  sisters, 
which  is  forbidden.  Moreover,  this  plan  necessitates  a 
segmentation,  not  of  clan  Eagle  Hawk,  but  of  the  tribif 
which  is  composed  of  both  Crows  and  Eagle  Hawks. 
These  conspicuous  facts  demolish  the  whole  theory  of 
the  segmentation  of  a  ''clan"  into  a  new  clan  which 
takes  a  new  totem,  though  it  would  need  two. 

Moreover,  why  should  a  tribal  colony  of  two  blended 
clans  take,  as  would  be  absolutely  necessary,  two  new 
totem  names  at  all  ?  We  know  not  one  example  of 
change  of  totem  name  in  Australia.^  Their  old  totems 
were  their  gods,  their  flesh,  their  blood,  their  vital 
energies,  by  Dr.  Durkheim's  own   definition.      ''The 

^  In  Natives  tf  South-East  Australia^  pp.  215*  3i6^  we  hear  on  the 
evidence  of  '*  Wonghi  infonnants"  that  members  of  the  totems  are  allowed 
to  change  totems,  '*to  meet  marriage  difficnlties,"  and  because  in  different 
parts  of  the  tribal  territory  different  animals,  which  act  as  totems,  are 
scarce.  The  tribe,  having  matrimonial  classes,  is  not  pristine,  and,  if  the 
report  be  accorate,  totemic  ideas,  from  Dr.  Dnrkheim's  point  of  view,  cannot 
be  "still  in  their  Tigoar.** 


102  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

members  of  a  clan  literally  deem  themselves  of  one  flesh, 
of  one  blood,  and  the  blood  is  that  of  the  mythic  being" 
(the  totem)  **  from  which  they  are  all  descended."  *  How 
and  wky,  then,  should  emigrants  from ''  clans/'  say  Eagle 
Hawk  and  Crow,  change  their  gods,  their  blood,  their 
flesh,  their  souls  ?  To  imagine  that  totems  or  even  the 
descent  of  totems  can  be  changed,  by  legislation,  from  the 
female  to  the  male  line,  is,  says  Dr.  Durkheim,  ''to  forget 
that  the  totem  is  not  a  thing  which  men  think  they  can 
dispose  of  at  will,  ...  at  least  so  long  as  totemic  beliefs 
are  in  vigour."  ' 

Our  author  goes  on  :  ''A  totem,  in  fact, is  not  a  mere 
name,  it  is,  above  all  and  before  all,  a  religious  principle, 
one  with  the  individual  in  whom  it  dwells  ;  and  part  of 
his  personality.)  One  can  no  more  change  his  totem, 
than  he  can  change  his  soul.  .  .  ." 

In  that  case,  how  did  the  supposed  colonies  thrown 
off  by  a  segmented  clan,  manage  to  change  their  totems, 
as  they  did,  on  Dr.  Durkheim's  theory  ?  ■  They  lived 
in  the  early  vigour  of  totemic  beliefs,  and  during  that 
blooming  age  of  totemism,  says  Dr.  Durkheim,  ''the 
totem  is  not  a  thing  which  men  think  they  can  dispose 
of  at  will,"  and  yet,  on  his  theory,  they  did  dispose  of 
it,  they  took  new  totems.* 

^  VAnnii  Sociologiqtu^  i.  p.  51.         *  Ibid.,  ▼.  p.  no.        *  Ibid,  L  p.  6. 

^  In  Folk  Lor*,  March  1904, 1  cridciBed  what  I  regard  as  an  inconsistency 
in  this  part  of  Dr.  Durkheim's  theory.  I  here  cite  his  reply  teztually,  firom 
Folk  Lort^  June  Z9G4,  pp.  2x5-216. 

RipoNsi  1  M.  Lang. 

*'  Dans  le  Folk  Lor*  de  Mars,  M.  Lang,  sous  pr^texte  de  se  d^fendre  contre 
mes  critiques,  m'attaque  directement  Je  suis  done  oblig^  k  mon  grand  r^[ret, 
de  demander  lliospitalit^  dn  Folk  Lor$  pour  les  quelques  observations  qui 
suiTent  Afin  d'abr^er  le  d^bat,  je  n'ezaminerai  pas  si  M.  Lang  s'est  justifi^ 
on  non  de  mes  critiques,  et  me  borne  i  r^ndre  k  celle  qn'il  m'a  adress^. 

'*  M.  Lang  me  r^proche  d'avoir  reni^  ma  propre  th^rie  snr  la  nature  dn 


CONTROVERSY  103 

The  supposed  process  seems  to  me  doubly  impossible 
by  Dr.  Durkheim^s  premises.  A  ''  clan/'  exogamous,  with 
female  kin,  cannot  overflow  its  territory,  for  it  has  con- 
fessedly, as  a  '^  clan/'  no  delimitations  of  territory.  Con- 
totem.  J'aurais  {VAmUs  Sociohgiqui^  L  pp.  6  et  52)  dit  qn'im  dan  peat 
dianger  de  totem  et,  dans  la  m£me  p^riodique  (t.  pp.  no,  iii),  j*auraia 
tobli  qn'nn  tel  diangement  est  impossible.  En  r^alit^,  la  seoonde  opinion 
qui  m'est  ainsi  attribn^  n'est  pas  la  mienne  et  je  ne  I'ai  pas  exprim^ 

**  En  efiet,  je  n'ai  pas  dit  que  groupes  et  indindus  ne  pouvaient  jamais 
dianger  de  totem,  mais,  ce  qui  est  tout  autre  chose,  que  U  principt  d$fiHa- 
Horn  M^miquif  la  mamirs  doni  U  toUm  tst  ripmti  s§  iransmtttri  des  parents 
amx  tnfatUs  nepeuoaU  tre  mod^e  par  nusurg  itigislativef  par  simple  cotnem* 
tien,  Je  dte  les  expressions  que  j'ai  employ^  et  que  tait  M.  Lang :  '*  Tant 
que^  d'apr^  les  croyances  regnantes,  le  totem  de  TenCtrnt  ^tait  regard^  oomme 
nne  emanation  du  totem  de  la  mere,  il  n*y  avait  pas  de  mesnre  legislative  qui 
pAt  fiure  qu'il  en  fut  autrement."  Et  plus  bas  (*'  Les  croyances  tot^miques) 
ne  permettaient  pas  que  le  mode  de  transmission  du  totem  pilt  toe  modifi^ 
d'nn  coup,  par  un  acte  de  la  yolont^  oollectiTe."  II  est  dair,  en  effet,  que  si 
Ton  croit  fermement  que  I'esprit  tot^mique  de  renfinnt  est  d^ermin^  par  la 
fut  de  la  conception,  il  n'y  a  pas  de  legislation  qui  puisse  d^der  qu'li  partir 
d'un  certain  moment  il  aura  lieu  de  telle  fii9on  et  non  de  tdle  autre.  Mais 
mon  assertion  ne  porte  que  sur  ce  cas  particulier.  .Et  des  changements  de 
totems  restent  possibles  dans  d'autres  conditions  oomme  cdles  dont  il  est 
question  dans  le  Tome  I.  de  LAfmie  Socialogifue.  J'ajoute  que  mtee  ccs 
diangements  n'ont  jamais  lieu,  i  mon  sens,  par  mesure  l^gislatiTC.  J'ai,  il  est 
▼rai,  compai^  nn  changement  de  totem  ^  un  diangement  d'ftme.  Mab  ccs 
diangements  d'ftmes  n'ont  rien  d'impossible  (pour  Thomme  primitil)  dans  les 
conditions  dtennin^es.  Seulement,  ils  ne  sauraient  avoir  lieu  par  d^cret ;  or, 
e'est  tout  ce  que  signifiaient  les  quatre  ou  dnq  mots  incrimin^  par  M.  Lang. 
Leur  sens  est  tr^  dairement  d^termin^  par  tout  le  contexte  comme  je  viens 
de  le  montrer.  En  tout  cas,  apr^  les  explications  qui  pr^cMent,  appuy  to  sur 
des  textes,  il  ne  saurait  y  avoir  de  doute  sur  ma  pens^  et  je  consid^e  par 
suite  le  d^bat  comme  dos.  E.  Du&khxim." 

It  distresses  me  that  I  am  unable  to  understand  Dr.  Dnrkhdm's  defence. 
He  does  say  {VAn,  Sec,  L  p.  6)  that  the  colonies  of  "clans"  too  populous 
*'  to  exist  within  their  space  "  "  end  by  taking  a  totem  which  is  all  their  owni 
and  thenceforth  constitute  new  dans."  He  also  does  say  that  *'  the  totem  is 
not  a  thing  which  men  think  they  can  dispose  of  at  thek  will,  ...  at  least 
so  long  as  totemic  belieft  are  in  vigour"  (VAn,  See,  v.  p.  no).  But  his 
hypothetical  colonies  did  «  dispose  of"  their  old  totems  **  at  their  will,"  and 
took  new  totems  "all  their  own,"  and  that  while  "totemic  belie&  were  in 
their  vigour."  I  was  saying  nothing  about  le  pruuipe  defiUatien  tethiipu^ 
nor  was  Dr.  Durkhdm  when  he  spoke  of  dan  colonies  changing  their  totems. 
I  print  Dr.  Durkheim's  defence  as  otheiSi  more  acute  than  mysdf,  may  find 
it  WLtisfactory. 


104         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

sequently  a  clan  cannot  throw  o£F  a  colony  (only  a  tribe 
can  do  that);  therefore^  as  there  can  be  no  ''clan" 
colony,  the  tribal  colony  cannot  change  its  one  totem, 
for  it  has  two.  Moreover,  Dr.  Durkheim  says  that  there 
can  be  no  such  cavalier  treatment  of  the  totem :  ''Tant 
du  moins  que  les  croyances  tot^miques  sont  encore  in 
vigueur/'  Yet  he  also  says  that  the  totems  were  thus 
cavalierly  treated  when  totemic  beliefs  were  in  vigour. 

Dr.  Durkheim,  however,  might  reply :  ''  A  tribe  with 
two  'clans'  can  throw  off  colonies,  each  colony  neces- 
sarily consisting  of  members  of  both  clans,  and  these 
can  change  their  two  totems."  That  might  pass,  if  he 
had  not  said  that,  while  totemic  beliefs  are  in  vigour, 
men  cannot  dispose  of  the  totem,  "a  part  of  their  per* 
sonalities,"  at  their  will. 

One  argument,  based  on  certain  facts,  has  been  ad- 
vanced to  show  that  the  totem  kins  in  the  phratries  are 
really  the  result  of  the  segmentation  of  a  "clan"  into 
new  clans  with  new  totems.  This  argument,  however, 
breaks  down  on  a  careful  examination  of  the  facts  on 
which  it  is  based,  though  I  did  not  see  that  when  I  wrote 
Social  Origins^  p.  59,  Note  i.  The  chief  circumstance 
appealed  to  is  this.  The  Mohegans  in  America  have 
three  phratries  :  (i)  Wolf,  with  totem  kins  Wolf,  Bear, 
I>og,  Opossum ;  (2)  Turkey,  with  totem  kins  Turkey, 
Crane,  Chicken;  (3)  Turtle,  with  totem  kins  little 
Turtle,  Mud  Turtle,  Great  Turtle,  Yellow  EeL  "  Here  we 
are  almost  forced  to  conclude,"  wrote  Mr.  Eraser  in  1887, 
"that  the  Turtle  phratry  was  originally  a  Turtle  clan 
which  subdivided  into  a  number  of  clans,  each  of  which 
took  the  name  of  a  particular  kind  of  turtle,  while  the 
Yellow  Eel  clan  may  have  been  a  later  subdivision."  ^ 

1  ToUmitm,  p.  62, 1887. 


ARGUMENT  AGAINST  SEGMENTATION     105 

Mr.  Frazer  has  apparently  abandoned  this  position,  but 
it  seems  to  have  escaped  his  observation,  and  the  obser* 
vation  of  Dr.  Durkheim,  who  follows  him  here,  that  in 
several  cases  given  by  himself  the  various  species  of 
totem  animals  are  not  grouped  (as  they  ought  to  be  on 
the  hypothesis  of  subdivision)  under  the  headship  of  one 
totem  of  their  own  kind — like  the  three  sorts  of  Turtle 
in  the  Mohegan  Turtle  phratry — ^but  quite  the  reverse. 
They  are  found  in  the  opposite  phratry,  under  an  animal 
not  of  their  species. 

Thus  Mr.  Dawson,  cited  by  Mr.  Frazer,  gives  for  a 
Western  Victoria  tribe,  now  I  believe  extinct : — 

Phratry  A. 
Totem  kins : 

ljmg'4nlUdCo€k4Mioo. 
Pelican. 

Phratry  B. 
Totem  kins  : 

Banksian  Cockatoo. 
Boa  Snake. 
QuaiL 

The  two  cockatoos  are,  we  see,  in  opposite  phratries^  not 
in  the  same,  as  they  should  be  by  Mr.  Frazer's  theory.^ 

This  is  a  curious  case,  and  is  explained  by  a  myth. 
Mr.  Dawson,  the  recorder  of  the  case  (1881)  was  a 
scrupulous  inquirer,  and  remarks  that  it  is  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  be  able  to  converse  with  the 
natives  in  their  own  language.  His  daughter,  who 
made  the  inquiries,  was  intimately  acquainted  with  the 
dialects  of  the  tribes  in  the  Port  Fairy  district  The 
natives  collaborated  ''with  the  most  scrupulous  honesty.'' 
The  tribes  had  an  otiose  great  Being,  Pirmeheeal,  or 
Mam  Yungraak,  called  also  Peep  Ghnatnaen,  that  is, 

^  ToUmism^  p.  65,  dting  Datwion,  AmtraHam  Aborighus^  p.26£i  x«y. 


io6         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

'^  Father  Ours/'  He  is  a  gigantic  kindly  man,  living 
above  the  clouds.  Thunder  is  his  voice.  ''  He  is  seldom 
mentioned,  but  always  with  respect"  ^  This  Being,  how- 
ever, did  not  institute  exogamy.  The  mortal  ancestor 
of  the  race  ''  was  by  descent  a  Kuurokeetch,  or  Long- 
billed  Cockatoo."  His  wife  was  a  female  Kappatch 
(Kappaheear),  or  Banksian  Cockatoo.  These  two  birds 
now  head  opposite  phratries.  Their  children  could  not 
intermarry,  so  they  brought  in  ''strange  flesh" — ^alien 
wives — ^whence,  by  female  descent,  came  from  abroad 
the  other  totem  kins,  Pelican,  Boa  Snake,  and  QuaiL 
Pelican  appears  to  be  in  Long-billed  Cockatoo  phratry ; 
Boa  Snake  in  Banksian  Cockatoo  phratry.  At  least  these 
pairs  may  not  intermarry.  Quail,  as  if  both  a  phratry 
and  a  totem  kin  by  itself,  may  intermarry  with  any  of  the 
other  four,  while  only  three  kins  are  open  to  each  of  the 
other  four.'  In  this  instance  a  Cockatoo  phratry  has  not 
subdivided  into  Cockatoo  totem  kins,  but  two  species  of 
Cockatoos  head  opposite  phratries,  and  are  also  totem 
kins  in  their  own  phratries. 

In  the  same  way,  in  the  now  extinct  Mount  Gambler 
tribe,  the  phratries  are  Kumi  and  Kroki.  Black  Cockatoo 
(Wila)  is  in  Kroki ;  in  Kumi  is  Black  Crestless  Cockatoo 
(Karaal).'  By  Mr.  Frazer's  theory,  which  he  probably 
no  longer  holds,  a  Cockatoo  primary  totem  Idn  would 
throw  off  other  kins,  named  after  various  other  species 
of  Cockatoo,  and  become  a  Cockatoo  phratry,  with 
several  Cockatoo  totem  kins.  The  reverse  is  the  fact : 
the  two  Cockatoos  are  in  opposite  phratries. 

Again,  among  the  Ta-ta-thi  tribe,  two  species  of 

^  DftwsoD,  AustraHaM  Aborigimst  p.  49. 

'  Ibid,  pp.  26,  27. 

*  Kamiktroi  andJCumai,  p.  168.    ToUtmsm^  p.  85. 


FACTS  IN   PROOF  107 

Eagle  Hawk  occur  as  totems.  One  is  in  Eagle  Hawk 
phratry  (Muiwara),  the  other  is  in  Crow  phratry  (KiU 
para).  This  could  not  have  occurred  through  Eagle 
Hawk  ''clan"  splitting  into  other  clans,  named  after 
other  species  of  Eagle  Hawk.^ 

In  the  Kamilaroi  phratries  two  species  of  Kangaroos 
occur  as  totem  kins,  but  the  two  Kangaroo  totem  kins 
are  in  opposite  phratries.' 

If  Mr.  Frazer's  old  view  were  correct,  both  species 
of  Kangaroo  would  be  in  the  same  phratry,  like  the 
various  kinds  of  Turtle  in  the  Mohegan  Turtle  phratry. 
Again,  in  the  Wakelbura  tribe,  in  Queensland,  there  are 
Large  Bee  and  Small  or  Black  Bee  in  opposite  phrairies} 

On  Mr.  Frazer's  old  theory,  we  saw,  a  phratry  is  a 
totem  kin  which  split  into  more  kins,  having  for  totems 
the  various  species  of  the  original  totem  animal.  These, 
as  the  two  sorts  of  Bees,  Cockatoos,  Kangaroos,  and  so 
on,  would  on  this  theory  always  be  in  the  same  phratry, 
like  the  various  kinds  of  Mohegan  Turtles.  But  Mr. 
Frazer  himself  has  collected  and  published  evidence  to 
prove  that  this  is  far  from  being  usually  the  case ;  the 
reverse  is  often  the  case.  Thus  the  argument  derived 
from  the  Mohegan  instance  of  the  Turtle  phratry  is  in- 
validated by  the  opposite  and  more  numerous  facts. 
The  case  of  the  Mohegan  Turtle  phratry,  with  various 
species  of  Turtles  for  totem  kins  within  it,  is  again 
countered  in  America,  by  the  case  of  the  Wyandot 
Indians.  They  have  four  phratries.  If  these  have  names, 
the  names  are  not  given.    But  the  first  phratry  contains 

1  /.  A.  /.,  OT.  p.  349.    N<Uiu€  Tribes  of  Stmih-East  AustraliOt  p.  loa 
I  do  not  know  certainlj  whether  Mr.  Howitt  now  truisUtes  Mukmara  and  I 

KUpara  as  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow.  j 

*  Nativt  THbisofSouth'EastAusiraiia,  p.  104. 

*  TaUmttm^  p.  85.    Howitt,  Naiwe  Tribes  of  Souik^East  Australia,  p.  ZI2. 


io8         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Striped  TurtU,  Bear,  and  Deen  The  second  contains 
Highland  Turtle^  Black  Turtle,  and  Sfnootk  Large  Turtle. 
If  this  phratry  was  formed  by  the  splitting  of  Highland 
Turtle  into  Black  and  Smooth  Turtles,  why  is  Striped 
Turtle  in  the  opposite  phratry?^  The  Wyandots,  in 
OhiOi  were  village  dwellers,  with  female  reckoning  of 
lineage  and  exogamy.  If  they  married  out  of  the  tribe, 
the  alien  was  adopted  into  a  totem  kin  of  the  other 
tribe,  apparently  changing  his  totem,  though  this  is  not 
distinctly  stated.* 

Thus  Dr.  Durkheim's  theory  of  the  segmentation  of  a 
primary  totem ''  clan  "  into  other ''  clans  "  of  other  totems 
is  not  aided  by  the  facts  of  the  Mohegan  case,  which 
are  unusual.  We  more  frequently  find  that  animals 
of  di£Ferent  species  of  the  same  genus  are  in  opposite 
phratries  than  in  the  same  phratry.  Again,  a  totem  kin 
(with  female  descent)  cannot,  we  repeat,  overpopulate 
its  territory,  for,  as  Dr.  Durkheim  says,  an  exogamous 
dan  with  female  descent  has  no  territorial  basis.  Nor 
can  it  segment  itself  without  also  segmenting  its  linked 
totem  kin  or  kins,  which  merely  means  segmenting  the 
local  tribe.  If  that  were  done,  there  is  no  reason  why 
the  members  of  the  two  old  ** clans"  in  the  new  colony 
should  change  their  totems.  Moreover,  in  Dr.  Durk* 
heim's  theory  that  cannot  be  done  ''  while  totemic  beliefs 
are  in  vigour." 

To  recapitulate  our  objections  to  Dr.  Durkheim's 
theory,  we  say  (i.)  that  it  represents  human  society 
as  in  a  perpetual  state  of  segmentation  and  re- 
segmentation,  like  the  Scottish  Kirk  in  the  many 
secessions  of  bodies  which  again   split  up   into  new 

^  Powell,  Rtport  of  Bureau  of  Bthnohgy^  i879-So»  {k  6a 
'  Op.  tif.,  p.  68. 


OBJECTIONS  RECAPITULATED  109 

seceding  bodies.  First,  we  have  a  peupkuU^  or  horde, 
apparently  (though  I  am  not  quite  sure  of  the 
Doctor's  meaning)  permitted  to  be  promiscuous  in 
matters  of  sex.  (ii.)  That  horde,  for  no  obvious  reason, 
splits  into  at  least  two  '^  clans  " — ^we  never  hear  in  this 
a£Fair  of  more  than  the  two.  These  two  new  segments 
select  each  a  certain  animal  as  the  focus  of  a  mysterious 
impersonal  power.  On  what  grounds  the  selection  was 
made,  and  why,  if  they  wanted  an  animal  "god,"  the 
whole  horde  could  not  have  fixed  on  the  same  animal, 
we  are  not  informed.  The  animals  were  their  '<  ances- 
tors " — ^half  the  horde  believed  in  one  ancestor,  half  in 
another.  The  two  halves  of  the  one  horde  now  became 
hostile  to  each  other,  whether  because  of  their  diver- 
gence of  opinion  about  ancestry  or  for  some  other 
reason,  (iii.)  Their  ideas  about  their  animal  god  made 
it  impossible  for  members  of  the  same  half-horde  to 
intermarry,  (iv.)  Being  hostile,  they  had  to  take  wives 
from  each  other  by  acts  of  war.  (v.)  E^ch  half-horde 
was  now  an  exogamous  totem  kin,  a  "primary  clan," 
reckoning  descent  on  the  female  side.  As  thus  con- 
stituted, "no  clan  has  a  territorial  basis":  it  is  an 
amorphous  group,  a  floating  mass.  As  such,  no  clan 
can  overflow  its  territorial  limits,  for  it  has  none. 

(vi.)  But  here  a  fresh  process  of  segmentation  occurs. 
The  clan  does  overflow  its  territory,  though  it  has  none, 
and,  going  into  new  lands,  takes  a  new  totem,  though  this 
has  been  declared  impossible;  "the  totem  is  not  a  thing 
which  men  think  they  can  dispose  of  at  will,  at  least 
while  totemic  beliefs  are  in  vigour."  Thus  the  old 
"  clans  "  have  overflowed  their  territorial  limits,  though 
"  clans "  have  none,  and  segments  have  wandered  away 
and  changed  their  totems,  though,  in  the  vigour  of 


no    THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

totemic  ideas,  men  do  not  think  that  they  can  dispose  of 
their  totems  at  will,  (vii.)  In  changing  their  totems, 
they,  of  course,  change  their  blood,  but,  strange  to  say, 
they  still  recognise  their  relationship  to  persons  not  of 
their  blood,  men  of  totems  not  theirs,  namely,  the  two 
primary  clans  from  which  they  seceded.  Therefore  they 
cannot  marry  with  members  of  their  old  primary  clans, 
though  these  are  of  other  totems,  therefore,  ex  hypothesis 
of  di£Ferent  blood  from  themselves,  (viii.)  The  primary 
clans,  as  relations  all  round  grow  pacific,  become  the 
phratries  of  a  tribe,  and  the  various  colonies  which  had 
split  off  from  a  primary  clan  become  totem  kins  in 
phratries.  But  such  colonies  of  a  ^'clan"  with  exogamy 
and  female  descent  are  impossible. 

If  these  arguments  are  held  to  prove  the  inadequacy 
of  Dr.  Durkheim's  hypothesis,  we  may  bring  forward 
our  own.* 

^  I  have  excised  a  criticism  of  Dr.  Durkheim's  theory  of  the  tnodms  by 
which  "  primary  claqs "  segmented  into  secondary  dans  {VAnn4e  SocioU- 
giftu^  vi.  pp.  7-34)»  becaosei  since  a  dan,  exogamoos  and  with  female  reckon- 
ing of  dcKent,  cannot  conceivably  segment  itself  as  we  have  proved,  my 
other  arguments  are  as  superfluous  as  they  are  numerous. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  AUTHOR'S  THEORY 

Mr.  Darwin's  theory  of  man's  early  social  condition — Either  men  lived  in 
male  commanities,  each  with  his  own  female  mates,  or  man  was  solitary, 
liying  alone  with  his  female  mates  and  children— His  adolescent  sons 
he  droye  away — The  latter  yiew  accepted — It  inToWes  practical  exogamy 
— Misunderstood  by  M.  Salomon  Reinach — Same  results  would  follow 
as  soon  as  totems  were  evolved— Totemism  begins  in  assumption,  by 
groups  of  men,  of  tMe  names  of  natural  objects — Mr.  Howitt  states  this 
opinion — Savage  belief  in  magical  rapport  between  men  and  things  of 
the  same  name — Mr.  Fraser  and  Professor  Rhys  dted  for  this  fact — 
Theory  of  Dr.  Pikler — ^Totemism  arises  in  the  need  of  names  to  be 
represented  in  pictographs — But  the  pictograph  is  later  than  the  name 
— Examples  of  magic  of  names — Men  led  to  believe  in  a  connection  of 
blood  kin  between  themselves  and  objects  of  the  same  names — ^These 
objects  regarded  with  reverence — Hence  totemic  exogamy  merely  one 
aspect  of  the  general  totem  name — Group  names  were  sobriquets  of  local 
groups,  given  by  members  of  other  local  groups — Proof  that  such  names 
may  be  accepted  and  gloried  in — Cases  of  /ri^a/ names  given  from  without 
and  accepted — Mr.  Hill-Tout  on  influence  of  names — His  objection  to 
our  theory  answered — Mr.  Howitt's  objections  answered — American 
and  Celtic  cases  of  derisive  nicknames  accepted — ^Two  Australian  totem 
names  certainly  sobriquets — Religious  aspect  of  totemism — Results  from 
a  divine  deaee— Otha  myths — Recapitulation. 

The  problem  has  been  to  account  for  the  world-wide 
development  of  kinships,  usually  named  after  animals, 
plants,  and  other  objects,  and  for  the  rule  that  the 
members  of  these  kins  may  never  marry  within  the 
kinship  as  limited  by  the  name,  Crow,  Wolf,  or  whatever 
it  may  be.  Why,  again,  are  these  kinships  regimented, 
in  each  tribe,  into  two  '' phratries,"'  exogamous,  which 
also  frequently  bear  animal  names  ?    No  system  hitherto 


112         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

proposed  seems  satisfactory,  for  the  reasons  given  in  the 
preceding  critical  chapters. 

In  trying  to  construct  a  more  satisfactory  system  than 
those  which  have  been  criticised,  we  must  commence, 
like  others,  with  an  h3rpothesis  as  to  what  kind  of  social 
animal  man  was  when  he  began  his  career.  Now  we 
really  are  not  quite  reduced  to  conjecture,  for  Mr. 
Howitt's  knowledge  of  savage  life,  in  such  a  country 
as  Australia,  proves  that  the  economic  conditions,  the 
search  for  supplies,  and  the  blunt  inefficiency  of  the 
earliest  weapons,  instruments,  and  hunting  methods 
must  have  forced  men  to  live  in  small  separate  groups. 
The  members,  again,  of  each  group,  being  animated  by 
'< individual  likes  and  dislikes"  (including  love,  hate, 
jealousy,  maternal  a£Fection,  and  the  associations  of 
kindness  between  a  male  and  those  whom  he  provided 
for  and  protected),  must  soon  have  evolved  some  dis- 
crimination of  persons,  and  certain  practical  restraints 
on  amatory  intercourse.  In  groups  necessarily  very 
small,  these  germinal  elements  of  later  morality  could 
be  evolved,  as  they  could  not  be  evolved  in  the 
gregarious  communal  horde  of  theory. 

Even  when  man's  ancestors  were  hardly  men,  Mr. 
Darwin  thus  states  his  opinion  as  to  their  social 
condition. 

He  says,  ''  We  may  conclude,  judging  from  what  we 
know  of  the  jealousy  of  all  Male  Quadrupeds,  .  .  •  that 
promiscuous  intercourse  in  a  state  of  Nature  is  extremely 
improbable.  Therefore,  looking  far  back  in  the  stream 
of  Time,  and  judging  from  the  social  habits  of  man  as 
he  now  exists,  the  most  probable  view  is  (a)  that  he 
aboriginally  lived  in  small  communities,  each  [man]  with 
a  single  wife,  or,  if  powerful,  with  several,  whom  he 


DARWIN'S  THEORIES  113 

jealously  guarded  from  all  other  men.  Or  (6)  he  may 
not  have  been  a  social  animal,  and  yet  have  lived  with 
several  wives,  like  the  Gorilla — for  all  the  natives  agree 
that  but  one  adult  male  is  found  in  a  band.  When 
the  young  male  grows  up,  a  contest  takes  place  for 
the  mastery,  and  the  strongest,  by  killing  or  driving 
out  the  others,  establishes  himself  as  head  of  the 
community. 

"  Younger  males,  being  thus  expelled  and  wandering 
about,  would,  when  at  last  successful  in  finding  a  partner, 
prevent  too  close  interbreeding  within  the  limits  of  the 
same  family."  ^ 

There  is  no  communal  horde  in  either  of  Mr. 
Darwin's  conjectures,  and  the  males  of  these  '*  families  " 
were  all  exogamous  in  practice,  all  compelled  to  mate  out 
of  the  group  of  consanguinity,  except  in  the  case  of  the 
sire,  or  male  head,  who,  of  course,  could  mate  with  his 
own  daughters. 

Were  I  forced  to  conjecture,  I  should  adopt  Mr. 
Darwin's  second  hypothesis  (b)  because,  given  man  so 
jealous,  and  in  a  brutal  state  so  very  low  as  that  postu- 
lated, he  could  not  hope  ''jealously  to  guard  his  women 
from  all  other  men,"  if  he  lived  in  a  community  with 
other  men. 

There  would  be  fights  to  the  death  (granting  Mr. 
Darwin's  hypothesis  of  male  jealousy,  man  being  an 
animal  who  makes  love  at  all  seasons),'  and  the  little 
community  would  break  up.  No  respect  would  be  paid 
to  the  Seventh  Commandment,  and  Mr.  Darwin's  first 
conjectured  community  would  end  in  his  second — ^given 

1  Darwin,  Dacmt  of  Man,  it  pp.  361-363.    1871. 

*  I  do  not  extend  conjecture  to  a  period  when  '*  our  haman  or  half-human 
ancestors "  may  have  had  a  rutting  season,  like  stags.  C£  Westermarck, 
Hittory  of  Human  Marriagi^  pp.  27,  aS. 

H 


114         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

the  jealousy  and  brutality  and  animal  passions  of  early 
man,  as  postulated  by  him. 

On  Mr.  Darwin's  second  conjecture  our  system  could 
be  based.  Small  "family"  groups,  governed  by  the  will 
of  the  sire  or  master,  whose  harem  contains  aU  the 
young  females  in  the  group,  would  be  necessarily  exo- 
gamous  in  practice — ^for  the  younger  male  members. 
The  sire  would  drive  out  all  his  adult  sons  as  they  came 
to  puberty,  and  such  as  survived  and  found  mates  would 
establish,  when  they  could,  similar  communities. 

With  e£Bux  of  time  and  development  of  intellect  the 
rule,  now  conscious^  would  become, ''  No  marriage  within 
this  group  of  contiguity ; "  the  group  of  the  hearth-mates. 
Therefore,  the  various  "family  groups"  would  not  be 
self-sufficing  in  the  matter  of  wives,  and  the  males  would 
have  to  seize  wives  by  force  or  stealth  from  other  similar 
and  hostile  groups.  Exogamy,  in  fact,  so  far  as  the  rule 
was  obeyed,  would  exist,  with  raiding  for  wives,  (This 
is  the  view  of  Mr.  Atkinson,  in  his  Prinud  Law.y 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Darwin's  second  hypo- 
thesis as  to  the  primal  state  of  man's  brutal  ancestors 

^  Here  I  CAnnot  but  remark  on  the  almost  insuperable  difficulty  of  getting 
samnts  to  understand  an  unfamiliar  idea.  M.  Salomon  Reinach  writes, 
"  Another  theory  (Atkinson,  Letoumeau)  explains  exogamy  as  the  result  of 
the  sexual  jealousy  of  the  male,  chief  of  the  primitive  group.  {C£  VAfmH 
Sociehgiqui,  1904,  pp.  407,  434.)  He  is  supposed  to  have  tabooed  all  the 
women  of  the  clan,  reserving  them  for  himsel£  This  conception  of  a  chief 
not  only  polygamous  but  omnigamous^*  (pasigamous  must  be  meant !)  '*is 
founded  on  no  known  ethnological  finct*'  {Cultes,  Mytkes,  it  Religiomt  L 
161,  Note  1, 1905.)  Mr.  Atkinson  does  not  speak  of  a  "clan  *'  at  alL  The 
"  clan,"  in  French,  American,  and  some  English  anthropologists'  terminology, 
is  a  totem  kin  ¥rith  exogamy  and  female  reckoning  of  descent.  Mr.  Atkinson 
speaks,  in  the  first  instance,  of  ^'family  greups"  "  tk§  cychpeanfamiiy"  and 
a  sire  with  his  female  mates  and  children.  Such  a  sire  is  no  more  and  no  less 
"omnigamous"  than  a  Turk  in  his  harem,  except  that,  as  his  condition  is 
'*  semi-brutish,"  his  daughters  (as  in  Panama,  in  1699)  are  not  tabooed  to 
him.  Ethnology  cannot  now  find  this  state  of  things  of  course ;  it  is  a  theory 
of  Mr.  Darwin's,  based  on  the  known  habits  of  the  higher  mammals. 


CONNECTION  OF  GROUPS  WITH  ANIMALS   115 

be  rejected,  economic  and  emotional  conditions,  as 
stated  by  Mr.  Howitt  (ch.  iv,,  supra\  would  still  keep 
on  constantly  breaking  up,  in  everyday  life,  each  sup- 
posed communal  horde  of  men  into  small  individualistic 
groups,  in  which  the  jealousy  of  the  sire  or  sires  might 
establish  practical  exogamy,  by  preventing  the  young 
males  from  finding  mates  within  the  group.  This  would 
especially  be  the  case  if  the  savage  superstitions  about 
sexual  separation  and  sexual  taboo  already  existed,  a 
point  on  which  we  can  have  no  certainty.^  Young 
males  would  thus  be  obliged  to  win  mates,  probably  by 
violence,  from  other  hostile  camps.  But,  whether  this 
were  so  or  not,  things  would  inevitably  come  to  this 
point  later,  as  soon  as  the  totem  belief  was  established, 
with  the  totemic  taboo  of  exogamy, "  No  marriage  within 
the  totem  name  and  blood." 

The  establishment  of  totemic  belief  and  practice 
cannot  have  been  sudden.  Men  cannot  have,  all  in  a 
moment,  conceived  that  each  group  possessed  a  protec- 
tive and  sacred  animal  or  other  object  of  one  blood  with 
themselves.  Not  in  a  moment  could  they  have  drawn, 
on  Dr.  Durkheim's  lines,  the  inference  that  none  must 
marry  within  the  sacred  totem  blood.  Before  any  such 
faith  and  rule  could  be  evolved,  there  must  have  been 
dim  beginnings  of  the  belief  (so  surprising  to  us)  that 
each  human  group  had  some  intimate  connection  with 
this,  that,  or  the  other  natural  species,  plants,  or  animals. 
We  must  first  seek  for  a  cause  of  this  belief  in  the 
connection  of  human  groups  with  animals,  the  idea  of 
which  connection  must  necessarily  be  prior  to  the 
various  customs  and  rules  founded  on  the  idea.  Mr. 
Baldwin  Spencer  remarks,  ''  What  gave  rise  in  the  first 

1  See  Mr.  Crawley's  "The  Mystic  Rose"  for  this  theory  of  sexual  taboo. 


ii6    THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

instance  to  the  association  of  particular  men  with  par- 
ticular plants  and  animals  it  does  not  seem  possible 
to  say/'  Mr.  Howitt  asks,  ''How  was  it  that  men 
assumed  the  nanus  of  obfects  which^  in  fact^  must  have 
been  the  commencement  o/totemism  ?"^  The  answer  may 
be  very  simple.  It  ought  to  be  an  answer  which  takes 
for  granted  no  superstition  as  already  active ;  magic, 
for  instance,  need  not  have  yet  been  developed. 

In  criticising  the  theory  of  Mr.  Baldwin  Spencer,  we 
have  tried  to  show  that  human  groups  would  not  work 
magic  each  for  a  separate  animal,  unless  they  already 
believed  in  a  connection  of  a  mystic  or  peculiarly 
intimate  kind  between  themselves  and  their  animal. 
Whether  late  or  early  in  evolution,  the  Arunta  totem 
magic  can  only  rest  on  the  belief  in  a  specially  close 
and  mystical  rapport  between  the  totem  animal  or  plant, 
and  the  human  beings  of  the  same  name.  How  could 
the  belief  in  that  rapport  arise  ? 

Manifestly,  if  each  group  woke  to  the  consciousness 
that  it  bore  the  name  of  a  plant  or  animal,  and  did  not 
know  how  it  came  to  bear  that  name,  no  more  was 
needed  to  establish,  in  the  savage  mind,  the  belief  in  an 
essential  and  valuable  connection  between  the  human 
group  Emu,  and  the  Emu  species  of  birds,  and  so  on. 
As  Mr.  Howitt  says,  totemism  begins  in  the  bearing  of 
the  name  of  an  object  by  a  human  group. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  a  fact  so  obvious  as 
this — ^that  the  community  of  name,  if  it  existed,  and  if 
its  origin  were  unhnown,  would  come  to  be  taken  by  the 
groups  as  implying  a  mystic  connection  between  all  who 
bore  it,  men  or  beasts — can  have  escaped  the  notice  of 
any  one  who  is  acquainted  with  the  nature  of  savage 

^  Native  Tribes  ofSauth-East  Ausira/ia,  p.  153. 


NAME,  SOUL,  AND  TOTEM  117 

thinking,  and  with  its  survivals  into  civilised  ritual  and 
magic.  Mr.  Frazer  has  devoted  forty-two  pages  of  his 
Golden  'B(mgh^  to  the  record  of  examples  of  this  belief 
about  names,  in  various  forms.  He  quotes  Professor 
Rhys  to  the  e£Fect  that  probably  *'the  whole  Aryan 
family  believed  at  one  time,  not  only  that  the  name  was 
a  part  of  the  man,  but  that  it  was  that  part  of  him  which 
is  termed  the  soul,  the  breath  of  life,  or  whatever  you 
may  choose  to  define  it  as  being."  So  says  Mr.  Rhys 
in  an  essay  on  Welsh  Fairies.*  This  opinion  rests  on 
philological  analysis  of  the  Aryan  words  for  "name," 
and  is  certainly  not  understated.'  But,  if  the  name  is 
the  soul  of  its  bearer,  and  if  the  totem  also  is  his  soul, 
then  the  name  and  the  soul  and  the  totem  of  a  man  are 
all  one  !  There  we  have  the  rapport  between  man  and 
totemic  animal  for  which  we  are  seeking. 

Whether  "  name  "  in  any  language  indicates  "  soul " 
or  not,  the  savage  belief  in  the  intimate  and  wonder- 
working connection  of  names  and  things  is  a  well- 
ascertained  fact  Now  as  things  equal  to  the  same 
thing  are  equal  to  each  other,  animals  and  sets  of  men 
having  the  same  name  are,  in  savage  opinion,  mystically 
connected  with  each  other.  That  is  now  the  universal 
savage  belief,  though  it  need  not  have  existed  when 
names  were  first  applied  to  distinguish  things,  and  men, 
and  sets  of  men.  Examples  of  the  belief  will  presently 
be  given. 

This  essential  importance,  as  regards  the  totemic 
problem,  of  the  names,  has  not  escaped  Professor  Julius 

1  Gokkn  Bought  2,  L  pp.  404-446. 
'  Ninttunth  CetUuiy,  xzx.  p.  566  sq, 

*  See  exmmples  in  "  Cupid  and  Psyche,"  in  my  Custom  and  Myth,  and 
Mr.  Qodd's  Tom  Tid  Tot,  pp.  91-93. 


ii8         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Pikler.^  Men,  says  Dr.  Pikler,  needed  for  each  other, 
collectively, ''  ein  bleibender  schrif tlich  fixierbarer  Nanu 
von  Gemeinschaften  und  individuen."  They  wanted 
permanent  names  of  human  communities  and  of  the 
members  of  these  communities,  names  which  could  be 
expressed  in  pictographs,  as  in  the  pictures  of  the  Red 
Indian  totem,  reversed  on  grave-posts;  or  erect,  on 
pillars  outside  of  the  quarters  of  the  totem  kin  in  Red 
Indian  villages ;  or  in  tattooing,  and  so  forth. 

This  is  practically  the  theory  of  Mr.  Max  MuUer.' 
Mr.  Max  Muller  wrote,  ''A  totem  is  (i.)  a  clan  mark,  then 
(ii.)  a  dan  name,  then  (iii.)  the  name  of  the  ancestor 
of  the  clan,  and  lastly  (iv.)  the  name  of  something 
worshipped  by  the  clan."  This  anticipated  Dr.  Pikler's 
theory.' 

It  is  manifest,  of  course,  that  the  name  necessarily 
comes  into  use  6e/ore,  not  as  Mr.  Max  Muller  thought, 
and  as  Dr.  Pikler  seems  to  think,  qfi^  its  pictorial 
representation,  ^'the  clan  mark."  A  kin  must  have 
accepted  the  name  of  *'  the  Cranes,"  before  it  used  the 
Crane  as  its  mark  on  a  pillar  in  a  village  (villages  being 
late  institutions),  or  on  grave-posts,  or  in  tattoo  marks. 
A  man  setting  up  an  inn  determines  to  call  it  "The 
Green  Boar,"  "The  White  Hart,"  or  ^'The  Lochinvar 
Arms,"  before  he  has  any  of  these  animals,  or  the 
scutcheon  of  the  Gordons  of  Lochinvar,  painted  on  the 
signboard.  He  does  not  give  his  inn  the  name  because 
it  has  the  signboard;  it  has  the  signboard  because  it 

*  D^r  Ursprung  des  Totemiimus,  Von  Dr.  Julius  Pikler,  Professor  der 
Rechtsphilosophie  an  der  Universitttt  Budapest  K.  Kofiinann,  Berlin,  x.o. 
Apparently  of  1900.  This  tract,  "  The  Origin  of  Totemism,"  written  in  1899, 
did  not  come  to  my  knowledge  till  after  this  chapter  was  drafted. 

'  Coniributtom  to  the  ScUmce  of  Mythology^  L  p.  201. 

*  Cf«  Social  Origins,  pp.  141,  142. 


NAMES  AND  PICTOGRAPHS  119 

has  the  name.  In  the  same  way,  a  community  must 
have  had  a  name,  say  Eagle  Hawk  or  Crow,  before  a 
savage  could  sketch,  or  express  by  gesture,  a  Crow  or 
Eagle  Hawk,  and  expect  the  public  to  understand  that 
he  meant  to  indicate,  whether  by  pictograph  or  gesture 
language,  a  member  of  that  Eagle  Hawk  or  Crow  named 
community.  Totemism  certainly  is  not,  as  Dr.  Pikler 
argues,  'Mie  Folge  der  Schriftart,  der  Schrifttechnik 
jenes  Menschen."^ 

The  names  came  before  the  pictographs,  not  the 
pictographs  before  the  names,  necessarily;  but  the 
animal  or  vegetable  names  had  this  advantage,  among 
others,  that  they  could  be  expressed  in  terms  of  picto- 
graph, or  of  gesture  language.  You  cannot  express  in 
art,  without  writing,  a  tribal  name,  such  at  least  as  are 
the  tribal  names  of  the  men  who  say  Wonghi  or  Kamil 
when  they  mean  ''No,"  or  of  other  tribes  when  they 
mean  *'What?" 

Dr.  Pikler  says  that  ''the  germ  of  totemism  is  the 
namingf"  and  here  we  agree  with  him,  but  we  cannot 
follow  him  when  he  adds  that  "the  naming  is  a  con- 
sequence of  the  primitive  schriftteknikt*  a  result  of  the 
representation  in  the  pictograph.  A  man  knows  himself 
and  is  known  by  others  to  be,  by  group  name,  a  Crane, 
or  a  Rain-cloud,  or  a  Bear,  before  he  makes  his  mark 
with  the  pictograph  of  the  bird's  footprint,  as  ^,  or  of 

the  Rain-cloud,  as  ^ff^V  ^^  ^^  ^^  Bear's-foot,  as  fc.« 

So  far  we  must  di£Fer,  then,  from  Dr.  Pikler ;  naming 
is  indeed  the  original  germ  of  totemism,  but  the  names 
came  before  the  pictographs  which  represent  the  animals 

'  Urtprung  des  Totemismtts,  p.  7. 

*  See  Colonel  Mallery  on  PictogrmphSy  Report  of  Burtau  of  Ethnohgy^ 
188S-1889,  pp.  56-61. 


I20         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

denoted  by  the  names :  it  could  not  possibly  be  other- 
wise. But  when  once  the  name  of  the  community. 
Eagle  Hawk|  Crow,  Bear,  Crane,  Rain-cloud,  or  what 
not,  is  recognised  and  accepted,  then,  as  Dr.  Pikler 
writes,  ''even  the  Greeks,^ in  ages  of  philosophic  thought 
relatively  advanced,  conceived  that  there  was  a  material 
connection  between  things  and  their  names,"  and,  in 
the  same  way,  savages,  bearing  an  animal  group-name, 
believed  that  there  was  an  important  connection,  in  fact, 
between  the  men  and  the  name-giving  animal,  ''and  so 
conceived  the  idea  of  kinship  with  or  descent  from  "  the 
name-giving  animal.' 

Totemism,  as  Dr.  Pikler  says,  ''has  its  original  germ, 
not  in  religion,  but  in  the  practical  everyday  needs 
of  men,"  the  necessity  for  discriminating,  by  names, 
between  group  and  group.  "Totems,  probably,  in 
origin,  had  nothing  really  religious  about  them,"  I  had 
written.' 

Thus,  given  a  set  of  local  groups^  known  by  the 

^  "  From  two  inscriptioiii  fonnd  at  Eleosb  it  appean  that  the  names  of  the 
priesta  were  committed  to  the  depths  of  the  sea,  probably  they  were  engraved 
on  tablets  of  bronse  or  lead,  and  thrown  into  deep  water  in  the  Gulf  of  Salamis. 
...  A  clearer  illostration  of  the  confusion  between  the  inoorpoiea]  and  the 
corporeal,  between  the  name  and  its  material  embodiment,  could  hardly  be 
found  than  in  this  practice  of  civilised  Greece.**  {GaUm  Bot^k,  a,  L  p.  441.) 
C£  Budge,  SgyptioH  Magu^  pp.  160-162,  1901.  "The  Egyptians  regarded 
the  creation  as  the  result  of  the  uttenmoe  of  the  name  of  the  god  Neb-er-tcher 
by  himsell"  Isis  could  not  do  her  will  on  him  till  she  learned  the  nam*  of 
the  god  Ra.  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  tell  us  that  the  great  sky-dwelling 
Being  of  the  Kaitish  tribe  '*  made  hiasself  and  gave  himself  his  name."  He 
made  himself  very  inadequately,  according  to  the  myth,  whidi  may  rest  on  a 
false  etymology,  and  the  meaning  of  his  name  is  not  pretty,  but  it  would  not 
surprise  one  if,  by  uttering  his  name,  he  made  himself.  ^Nortkirn  THies, 
p.  498.) 

*  Der  Urspruttg  du  Tfiemismms,  pp.  10,  1 1. 
'  Sxiai  Origins,  p.  138. 

*  I  am  sure  to  be  told  that  in  Chapter  III.  I  declared  loca/  totem  groups 
to  be  the  result  of  reckoning  in  the  male  line,  and  not  primitive,  and  that, 
here,  I  make  the  primitive  animal-named  group  iocai.    My  reply  is  that  in 


INFLUENCE  OF  NAMES  121 

names  of  Eagle  Hawk,  Crow,  Wolf,  Raven,  or  what  not, 
the  idea  that  these  groups  were  intimately  connected 
with  the  name-giving  animals  in  each  case  was,  in  the 
long  run,  sure  to  occur  to  the  savage  thinker.  On  that 
assumed  mystical  connection,  implied  in  the  name,  and 
suggested  by  the  name,  is  laid  the  foundation  of  all 
early  totemic  practice.  For  the  magical  properties  of 
the  connection  between  the  name  and  its  bearer  the 
reader  has  only  to  refer  to  Mr.  Frazer's  assortment  of 
examples,  already  cited.  We  here  give  all  that  are 
needed  for  our  purpose. 

In  Australia,  each  individual  Arunta  has  a  secret 
name,  Aritna  Churinga^  ''never  uttered  except  on  the 
most  solemn  occasions,"  "never  to  be  spoken  in  the 
hearing  of  women,  or  of  men,  or  of  another  group." 
To  speak  the  secret  name  in  these  circumstances  would 
be  as  impious  ''as  the  most  flagrant  case  of  sacrilege 
amongst  white  men."^ 

These  ideas  about  the  mystic  quality  of  names  are  so 
familiar  to  all  students,  that  I  did  not  deem  it  necessary 
to  dwell  on  them  in  Social  Origins.  But  we  should 
never  take  knowledge  for  granted,  or  rather,  for  every 
student  does  know  the  facts,  we  should  never  take  it 
for  granted  that  the  knowledge  will  be  applied.  The 
facts  prove,  I  repeat  that,  to  the  early  mind  names, 
and  the  things  known  by  names,  are  in  a  mystic  and 
transcendental  connection  of  rapparU  Other  Australian 
examples  of  the  secrecy  of  a  man's  name,  and  of  the 

this  pusage  I  am  not  speaking  of  toUm  groups,  but  of  loeai  groups  bearing 
ammaJ  namss,  a  very  diflferent  thing.  A  group  may  have  borne  an  animal 
name  long  before  it  evolved  totemic  beliefs  about  the  animal,  and  recognised 
it  as  a  totem.  No  group  that  was  net  local  could  get  a  name  to  itself,  at 
thu  early  stage  of  the  proceedings.    The  "  local  habitation"  precedes  the 


^  Spencer  and  Gillen,  NoHvt  Tribis  of  Ctntral  Australia^  p.  139. 


122  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

power  of  magically  injuring  him  by  knowledge  of  his 
name,  are  given  by  Mr.  Howitt,  Brough  Smyth,  Lumholtz, 
Bulmer,  Dawson,  and  others.  It  would  appear  that  this 
superstition  as  to  names  is  later  than  the  first  giving  of 
animal  names  to  totem  groups,  and  that  totem  names 
were  not  given  to  groups  by  the  groups  themselves  (at 
least,  were  not  given  after  the  superstition  about  names 
came  in),  for  to  blazon  their  own  group  names  abroad 
would  be  to  give  any  enemy  the  power  of  injuring  the 
group  by  his  knowledge  of  its  name.  Groups,  had  they 
possessed  the  name-belief,  would  have  carefully  con- 
cealed their  group  names,  if  they  could.  There  are  a 
few  American  cases  in  which  kins  talk  of  their  totems  by 
periphrases,  but  every  one  knows  the  real  names. 

He  who  knew  a  group's  name  might  make  a  magical 
use  of  his  knowledge  to  injure  the  group.  But  the  group 
or  kin-names  being  already  known  to  all  concerned 
(having  probably  been  given  from  without),  when  the 
full  totemic  belief  arose  it  was  far  too  late  for  groups 
to  conceal  the  totem  names,  as  an  individual  can  and 
does  keep  his  own  private  essential  name  secret.  The 
totem  animal  of  every  group  was  known  to  all  groups 
within  a  given  radius.  ''  It  is  a  serious  o£Fence,"  writes 
Mr.  Howitt,  ''for  a  man  to  kill  the  totem  of  another 
person,"  ^  that  is,  with  injurious  intentions  towards  the 
person. 

Mr.  Frazer  at  one  time  thought  that  the  totem  was 
perhaps  originally  the  soul-box,  or  life^receptacle,  of  the 
totemist,  and  said :  **  How  close  must  be  the  conceal- 
ment, how  impenetrable  the  reserve  in  which  he  hides 
the  inner  keep  and  citadel  of  his  being."  I  could  but 
reply,  as  Mr.  Hill-Tout  also  replies,  that  every  savage 

» /.  A,  /.,  p.  S3,  August  1888. 


GROUPS  OF  ANIMAL  NAME  123 

knew  the  secret^  knew  what  beast  was  a  man's  totem. 
I  added  that  I  knew  no  cases  of  a  custom  of  injuring 
a  man  by  killing  his  totem,  ''to  his  intention/'  but  that 
I  was  ''haunted  by  the  impression  that  I  had  met 
examples."  ^  Mr.  Howitt,  we  see,  mentions  this  kind  of 
misdeed  as  punishable  by  native  law.  But  it  was  too 
late,  we  repeat,  to  hide  the  totem  names.  Men  now  can 
only  punish  offenders  who  make  a  cruel  magical  use  of 
their  knowledge  of  an  enemy's  totem. 

An  individual,  however,  we  must  repeat,  can  and 
does  keep  his  intimate  essential  personal  name  as  dark 
as  the  secret  name  of  the  city  of  Rome  was  kept.  "An 
individual,"  says  Mr.  Howitt,  "has  of  course  his  own 
proper  individual  name,  which,  however,  is  often  in 
abeyance,  because  of  the  disinclination  to  use  it,  or  even 
to  make  it  generally  known,  lest  it  might  come  into  the 
knowledge  and  possession  of  some  enemy,  who  thus 
having  it  might  thereby  'sing'  its  owner  —  in  other 
words,  use  it  as  an  incantation." ' 

Thus,  in  Australia,  the  belief  that  names  imply  a 
mystic  rapport  between  themselves  and  the  persons  who 
bear  them  is  proved  to  be  familiar,  and  it  is  acted  upon 
by  each  individual  who  conceals  his  secret  name. 

This  being  so,  when  the  members  of  human  groups 
found  themselves,  as  groups,  all  in  possession  of  animal 
group-names,  and  had  forgotten  how  they  got  the  names 
(all  known  groups  having  long  been  named),  it  was  quite 
inevitable  that  men,  always  speculative,  should  ask  them- 
selves, "What  is  the  nature  of  this  connection  between 
us  and  the  animals  whose  names  we  bear  ?  It.  must  be 
a  connection  of  the  closest  and  most  important  kind." 

*  Social  Origins^  pp.  145,  146,  and  Note  I. 

*/.  A.  /.,  August  1888,  p.  51.    Stmih'Easttm  Tridis,  p.  736. 


124         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

This  conclusion^  I  repeat,  was  inevitable,  given  the  savage 
way  of  thinking  about  names.  Will  any  anthropologist 
deny  this  assertion  ? 

Probably  the  mere  idea  of  a  mystic  connection  be- 
tween themselves  and  their  name-giving  animals  set  the 
groups  upon  certain  superstitious  acts  in  regard  to  these 
animals.  But  being  men,  and  a$  such  speculative,  and 
expressing  the  results  of  their  speculations  in  myths,  they 
would  not  rest  till  they  had  evolved  a  myth  as  to  the 
precise  nature  of  the  connection  between  themselves 
and  their  name-giving  animals,  the  connection  indicated 
by  the  name. 

Now,  men  who  had  arrived  at  this  point  could  not 
be  so  inconceivably  unobservant  as  not  to  be  aware  of 
the  blood  connection  between  mother  and  children, 
indicated  in  the  obvious  facts  of  birth.  A  group  may 
not  have  understood  the  facts  of  reproduction  and  pro- 
creation (as  the  Arunta  are  said  not  to  understand 
them),^  but  the  facts  of  blood  connection,  and  of  the 
relation  of  the  blood  to  the  life,  could  escape  no  human 
beings.*  As  savages  undeniably  do  not  draw  the  line 
between  beasts  and  other  things  on  one  side,  and  men 
on  the  other,  as  we  do,  it  was  natural  for  them  to 
suppose  that  the  animal  bearing  the  group  name,  and 
therefore  solidaire  with  the  group,  was  united  with  it,  as 
the  members  of  the  group  themselves  were  visibly  united, 
namely,  by  the  blood  bond.  The  animal  in  myth  is  thus 
men's  ancestor,  or  brother,  or  primal  ancestral  form. 

^  Other  tribes  decidedly  do  understand.  Can  the  Churinga  nanja  and 
reincarnation  beliefs  have  set  up  nescience  of  obvious  fiicts  among  the  Arunta? 
"The  children  originate  solely  from  the  male  parent,  and  only  owe  their 
infantine  nurture  to  the  mother,"  according  to  certain  Australian  tribes  wiik 
femaU  discemt.  (Howitt,/.  A.  /.,  1882,  p.  50a.  Smik-BasUm  Tribes^  pp. 
283,  2S4.    So,  too,  the  EuahUyi.    Mrs.  Langloh  Parker's  MS.) 

'  Cf.  GokUn  Bought  a,  L  pp.  360-362. 


TOTEMS  AND  EXOGAMY  125 

This  belief  would  promote  kindness  to  and  regard  for 
the  animal. 

Next,  as  soon  as  the  animal-named  groups  evolved 
the  universally  di£Fused  beliefs  about  the  wakan  or  manaf 
or  mystically  sacred  quality  of  the  blood  as  the  life, 
they  would  also  develop  the  various  totem  tabus,  such 
as  not  to  kill  the  totem  animal,  not  to  shed  its  blood, 
and  the  idea  that,  by  virtue  of  this  tabu,  a  man  must 
not  marry  a  maid  who  was  of  one  blood  with  him  in 
the  totem.  Even  without  any  blood  tabu,  the  tabu  on 
women  of  the  same  totem  might  arise.  ''An  Oraon  clan, 
whose  totem  is  the  Kujzar-tree,  will  not  sit  in  its  shade/' 
So  strong  is  the  intertotemic  avoidance.^  The  belief 
grew  to  the  pitch  that  a  man  must  not  ''use"  anything 
of  his  totem  (xp^Oo*  ywaUi),  and  thus  totemic  exogamy, 
with  the  sanction  of  the  sacred  totem,  was  established.' 

Unessential  to  my  system  is  the  question,  iaw  the 
groups  got  animal  names,  as  long  as  they  got  them  and 
did  not  remember  how  they  got  them,  and  as  long  as 
the  names,  according  to  their  way  of  thinking,  indicated 
an  essential  and  mystic  rapport  between  each  group  and 
its  name-giving  animal.  No  more  than  these  three 
things — a  group  animal-name  of  unknown  origin ;  be- 
lief in  a  transcendental  connection  between  all  bearers, 
human  and  bestial,  of  the  same  name ;  and  l>elief  in  the 

1  DaltOD,  Ethnology  of  B$ngal^  p.  254. 

'  On  this  point  of  the  blood  Ubu  see  Dr.  Durkheim,  V Annie  Sodolo- 
iipu^  L  pp.  47-57.  Also  M.  Reinach,  L Antkropol^u^  vol.  z.  p.  65.  The 
point  was  laid  before  me  long  ago  by  Mr.  Arthur  Piatt,  when  he  was  editing 
the  papers  of  Mr.  J.  F.  McLennan.  Dr.  Durkheim  charges  me  (Folk  Lore^ 
December  1903)  with  treating  these  tabus  "vaguely"  in  Social  Origins,  I 
merely  referred  the  reader  more  than  once,  as  in  Social  Origins^  p.  57,  Note  i, 
to  Dr.  Durkheim*s  own  ezpodtiony  also  to  M.  Reinach,  V Anthropologic^  z. 
p.  65.  The  theory  of  the  sacredness  of  the  blood  is  not  absolutely  necessary. 
The  totem  tabu  often  excludes  all  contact  with  the  totem  by  the  totemist 


126  THE   SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

blood  superstitions — was  needed  to  give  rise  to  all  the 
totemic  creeds  and  practices,  including  exogamy. 

Now,  we  can  prove  that  the  origin  of  the  totem  names 
of  savage  groups  is  unknown  to  the  savages,  because 
they  have  invented  many  various  myths  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  the  names.  If  they  knew,  they  would  not 
have  invented  such  myths.  That,  by  their  way  of  think- 
ing, the  name  denotes  a  transcendental  connection, 
which  must  be  exploited,  between  themselves  and  their 
name-giving  animals  we  have  proved. 

In  Social  Origins  I  ventured  a  guess  as  to  how  the 
group  names  first  arose,  namely,  in  sobriquets  given  by 
group  to  group.^  I  showed  that  in  France,  England,  the 
Orkneys,  and  I  may  now  add  Guernsey,  and  I  believe 
Crete,  villagers  are  known  by  animal  names  or  sobri- 
quets, as  in  France — Cows,  Lizards,  Pigeons,  Frogs, 
Dogs  ;  in  Orkney — Starlings,  Oysters,  Crabs,  Seals,  Auks, 
Cod,  and  so  forth.  I  also  gave  the  names  of  ancient 
Hebrew  villages,  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  such 
as  Lions,  Jackals,  Hornets,  Stags,  Gazelles,  Wild  Asses, 
Foxes,  Hyaenas,  Cows,  Lizards,  Scorpions,  and  so  forth. 
I  also  proved  that  in  rural  England,  and  in  the  Sioux 
tribe  of  Red  Indians,  rapidly  ceasing  to  be  totemic,  the 
group  sobriquets  were  usually  "  Eaters  of "  this  or  that 
animal,  or  (where  totemism  survived  among  the  Sioux) 
''not  Eaters  of"  this  or  that.>  I  thus  established  the 
prevalence  in  human  nature,  among  peasants  and  bar- 
barians, of  giving  animal  group-sobriquets.  "  In  Corn- 
wall," writes  an  informant  (Miss  Alleyne),  ''it  seems  as 
if  the  inhabitants  do  not  care  to  talk  about  these  things 
for  some  reason  or  another,"  and  "  the  names  are  be- 

^  The  passage  will  be  found  in  Social  Origim^  pp.  166-175. 
■  SocicU  Origins^  pp.  295-301. 


CAUSE  OF  GROUP  SOBRIQUETS         127 

lieved  to  be  very  ancient."  When  once  attention  is 
drawn  to  this  curious  subject,  probably  more  examples 
will  be  discovered 

I  thus  demonstrated  (and  I  know  no  earlier  statement 
of  the  fact)  the  existence  in  the  European  class  least 
modified  by  education  of  the  tendency  to  give  such 
animal  group -sobriquets.  The  same  principle  even 
now  makes  personal  names  derived  from  animals  most 
common  among  individuals  in  savage  countries,  the 
animal  name  usually  standing,  not  alone,  but  qualified, 
as  Wolf  the  Unwashed,  in  the  Saga ;  Sitting  Bull,  and 
so  on.  As  we  cannot  find  a  race  just  becoming  totemic, 
we  cannot,  of  course,  prove  that  their  group  animal- 
names  were  given  thus  from  without,  but  the  process 
is  undeniably  a  vera  causa,  and  does  operate  as  we  show. 

As  to  this  suggestion  about  the  sources  of  the  animal 
names  borne  by  the  groups.  Dr.  Durkheim  remarks  that 
it  is  "  conjectural."  *  Emphatically  it  is,  like  the  Doctor's 
own  theories,  nor  can  any  theory  on  this  matter  be  other 
than  guess-work.  But  we  do  not  escape  from  the  diffi- 
culty by  merely  saying  that  the  groups  "adopted"  animal 
names  for  themselves;  for  that  also  is  a  mere  conjec- 
ture. Perhaps  they  did,  but  why  7  Is  it  not  clear  that, 
given  a  number  of  adjacent  groups,  each  one  group  has 
far  more  need  of  names  for  its  neighbours  than  of  a 
name  for  itself  ?  "  We  "  are  "  we  " ;  all  the  rest  of  man- 
kind are  "  wild  blacks,"  "  barbarians,"  "  outsiders."  But 
there  are  a  score  of  sets  of  outsiders,  and  "  we,"  "  The 
Men,"  need  names  for  each  and  every  one  of  them. 
"We"  are  "The  Men,"  but  the  nineteen  other  groups 
are  also  "  The  Men  " — in  their  own  opinion.  To  us  they 
are  something  else  ("  they  "  are  not  "  we "),  and  we  are 

^  Folk  Lon,  December  1903,  p.  423. 


128         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

something  else  to  them;  we  are  not  ih^ ;  we  all  need 
di£Ferentiation,  and  we  and  they,  by  giving  names  to 
outsiders,  differentiate  each  other.  The  names  arose 
from  a  primitive  necessity  felt  in  everyday  life. 

That  such  sobriquets,  given  from  without,  may  come 
to  be  accepted,  and  even  gloried  in,  has  been  doubted, 
but  we  see  the  fact  demonstrated  in  such  modern  cases 
as  ''the  sect  called  Christians"  (so  called  from  without), 
and  in  Les  Gueux^  Huguenots^  Whigs,  Tories,  Cavaliers, 
Cameronians  {^^that  mcknamei^  cries  Patrick  Walker 
(1720),  "  why  do  they  not  call  them  CargiUites,  if  they 
will  give  them  a  nickname  ?")^  I  later  prove  that  two 
ancient  and  famous  Highland  clans  have,  from  time 
immemorial,  borne  clan  names  which  are  derisive  nick- 
names. Several  examples  of  party  or  local  nicknames, 
given,  accepted,  and  rejoiced  in,  have  been  sent  to  me 
from  North  Carolina. 

Another  example,  much  to  the  point,  may  be  offered. 
The  "  nations,"  that  is,  aggregates  of  friendly  tribes,  in 
Australia,  let  us  say  the  Kamilaroi,  are  usually  known  by 
names  derived  from  their  word  for  "  No,"  such  as  Kamil 
(Kamilaroi),  Wira  (Wirajuri),  Wanghi  (Wonghi  tribe), 
Kabi  (Kabi  tribe).  Can  any  one  suppose  that  these  names 
were  given  from  within  ?  Clearly  they  were  given  from 
without  and  accepted  from  within.  One  of  the  Wonghi 
or  of  the  Wiraidjuri  or  Kamilaroi  tribe  is  ''  proud  of  the 
title."  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  write,  ''  It  is  possible 
that  the  names  of  the  tribes  were  originally  applied  to 
them  by  outsiders,  and  were  subsequently  adopted  by 
the  members  of  the  tribes  themselves,  but  the  evidence  is 
scanty  and  inconclusive."  >     There  can  hardly  l>e  any 

^  Vindication  of  Cameron's  Name.    "  Saints  of  the  Corenant,"  L  p.  251. 
*  Northern  Tribis,  |>.  lo,  Note  2. 


SOBRIQUETS  NOT  DERISIVE  129 

evidence  but  what  we  know  of  human  nature.  Do  the 
French  call  themselves  Out  Out?  Not  much  1  but  the 
natives  of  New  Caledonia  call  them  Out  OuO 

Moreover,  to  return  to  totem  names,  savage  groups 
would  have  no  reason  for  resenting,  as  derisive,  animal 
names  given  from  without.  Considering  the  universal 
savage  belief  in  the  mystic  wisdom  and  waian,  or  power, 
of  animals,  there  was  no  kind  of  objection  among  savages 
to  being  known  by  animal  group-names.  I  repeat  that 
the  names  were  rather  honour -giving  than  derisive. 
This  has  not  been  understood  by  my  critics.  They 
have  said  that  among  European  villages,  and  among  the 
Sioux  of  to-day,  group  nicknames  are  recognised,  but 
not  gloried  in  or  even  accepted  meekly.  My  answer  is 
obvious.  Our  people  have  not  the  savage  ideas  about 
animals. 

Here  it  may  be  proper  to  reply  to  this  objection  as 
urged  by  Mr.  Hill-Tout  That  scholar  might  seem,  in 
one  passage  of  his  essay  on  ''Totemism  :  Its  Origin  and 
Import,"  to  agree  fully  with  these  ideas  of  mine.  He 
says,  ''To  adopt  or  receive  the  name  of  an  animal  or 
plant,  or  other  object,  was,  in  the  mind  of  the  savage,  to 
be  endowed  with  the  essence  or  spirit  of  that  object,  to 
be  under  its  protection,  to  become  one  with  it  in  a  very 
special  and  mysterious  sense."  That  is  exactly  my  own 
opinion.  The  very  early  groups  received  animal  names,  I 
suggest,  and  when  they  had  forgotten  how  they  received 
them,  believed  themselves,  as  Mr.  Hill-Tout  says  they 
naturally  would  do,  to  be  "under  the  protection"  of 
their  name-giving  animals,  ''and  one  with  them  in  a 
very  special  and  mysterious  sense."      Mr.   Hill -Tout 

1  J.  J.  Atkinson.    The  natives  call  us  "White  Men/*    We  do  not  call 
ourselves  "God  dams,"  bat  Jeanne  d' Arc  did. 


I30         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

proceeds  to  give  many  examples  of  the  process  from 
America.^ 

It  might  appear,  then,  that  Mr.  Hill-Tout  accepts  my 
theory,  namely,  that  group  names,  of  forgotten  origin, 
are  the  germs  of  totemism.  But  he  rejects  it,  partly,  no 
doubt,  because  he  owns  a  di£Ferent  theory.  His  reasons 
for  objecting,  however,  as  ofiFered,  are  that,  while  I 
prove  that  modern  villages  give  each  other  collective 
animal  names,  I  do  not  prove  that  the  villagers — styled 
Grubs,  Mice,  Geese,  Crows,  and  so  on — ^accept  and 
rejoice  in  these  names,  as  totemists  rejoice  in  being 
Grubs,  Mice,  Crows,  and  so  forth.  But  I  never  said 
that  the  modern  villagers  delighted  in  being  called  Mice 
or  Cuckoos !  They  very  much  resent  such  appellations. 
The  group  names  of  modern  villagers  were  cited  merely 
to  prove  that  the  habit  of  giving  such  collective  names 
survives  in  Folk  Lore,  not  to  prove  that  modern  villagers 
accept  them  gladly.  The  reason  why  they  resent  them 
is  that  our  country  folk  are  not  savages,  and  have  not  the 
beliefs  about  the  mystic  force  of  names  and  the  respect 
for  animals  which  Mr.  Hill-Tout  justly  ascribes  to 
savages. 

A  native  of  Dingley  Dell  may  call  all  natives  of 
Muggleton  ''  Potato-grubs,"  and  the  Muggleton  people, 
from  time  immemorial,  may  have  called  the  Dingley 
Dell  folk  ''Rooks."  But,  not  being  savages,  they 
do  not  think — as  Mr.  Hill -Tout's  savages  do — ^that 
''  to  receive  the  name  of  an  animal  is  to  be  under  its 
protection,  to  become  one  with  it  in  a  very  special  and 
mysterious  sense,"  and  they  do  not,  like  savages,  think 
nobly  of  grubs  and  rooks.  The  distinction  is  obvious, 
except  to  critics.    Mr.  Hill-Tout  thus  accepts  my  pre- 

^  Trans.  R^y*  Soc,  Canada^  vol.  ix.,  tu.  pp.  64,  66. 


f 


MODERN   AND  SAVAGE  SOBRIQUETS    131 

mises  as  regards  savages  and  their  ideas  about  names, 
but  rejects  my  conclusion,  because  modern  villagers  do 
not  reason  like  savages!  As  to  villagers,  my  evidence 
was  only  meant  to  show  the  wide  difiFusion,  from  ancient 
Israel  to  the  Orkneys,  of  the  habit  of  giving  animal 
names  to  village  groups.  For  evidence  of  the  efiPect 
which  that  habit  would  have  on  savages,  I  have  now 
cited  Mr.  Hill-Tout  himself.  He  has  merely  misunder- 
stood a  very  plain  argument,^  which  he  advanced  as 
representing  his  own  opinion  (pp.  64-66).  But  then  Mr. 
Hill-Tout  has  a  counter  theory. 

•  Is  my  argument  intelligible  ?  A  modern  villager 
resents  the  bawling  out  of  ''  Mouse  "  as  he  passes.  Mouse 
being  the  collective  nickname  of  his  village,  because  he 
does  not  think  nobly  of  Mice.  The  savage  does  think 
nobly  of  all  animals,  and  so  has  no  reason  for  resenting, 
but  rather  for  glorying  in,  his  totem  name,  whether 
Mouse  or  Lion.  These  facts  were  plainly  asserted  in 
Social  Origins^  p.  169,  to  no  avail. 

Mr.  Howitt,  in  his  turn,  does  not  approve  of  my  idea, 
thus  stated  by  him,  that  ''  the  plant  and  animal  names 
would  be  impressed  upon  each  group  from  without,  and 
some  of  them  would  stick,  would  be  stereotyped,  and 
each  group  would  come  to  answer  to  its  nickname." 
He  replies — 

"To  me,  judging  of  the  possible  feelings  of  the 
ancestors  of  the  Australians  by  their  descendants  of  the 
present  time,  it  seems  most  improbable  that  any  such 
nicknames  would  have  been  adopted  and  have  given  rise 
to  totemism,  nor  do  I  know  of  a  single  instance  in  which 
such    names    have  been  adopted."  >      Mr.  Howitt,  of 

^  TVoiif .  Roy,  Sac,  Canada^  nt  supra,  pp.  96,  97. 
>  Native  Tribes  of  South- East  Australia^  p.  154. 


132  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

coursCi  could  not  possibly  find  kinships  now  adopt- 
ing animal  and  other  such  names  given  from  without, 
because  all  kinships  where  totemism  exists  have  got  such 
names  already,  and  with  the  names  a  sacred  l)ody  of 
customs.  But  does  he  suppose  that  the  many  local 
tribes  calling  themselves  by  their  word  for  **  No "  (as 
Kadi,  Kamil,  Wonghi,  and  so  on),  originally  gave  these 
names  to  themselves,  saying,  "  We  are  the  people  who, 
when  we  mean  *No,'  say  *Wonghi'"?  That  seems  to 
me  hardly  credible !  Much  more  probably  tribes  who 
used  Kamil  or  Kabi  for  "  No  "  gave  the  name  of  Wonghi 
to  a  tribe  who  used  Wongki  in  place  of  their  Kamil  or 
Kabi.  In  that  case  the  tribes,  as  tribes,  have  adopted 
names  given  from  without. 

Again,  I  consider  that  the  feelings  of  that  noble 
savage,  the  Red  Indian,  are  at  least  as  sensitive  to  insult 
as  those  of  Mr.  Hewitt's  blacks.  Now  it  so  happens 
that  the  Blackfoot  Indians  of  North  America,  who 
apparently  have  passed  out  of  totemism,  have  **gentes, 
a  gens  being  a  body  of  consanguineal  kinsmen  in  the 
male  line,"  writes  Mr.  G.  B.  Grinnell.^  These  clans,  no 
longer  totemic,  needed  names,  and  some  of  their  names, 
at  least,  are  most  insulting  nicknames.  Thus  we  have 
Naked  Dogs,  Skunks,  They  Don't  Laugh,  Buffalo  Dung, 
All  Crazy  Dogs,  Fat  Roasters,  and — Liars  !  No  men 
ever  gave  such  names  to  their  own  community.  In  a 
diagram  of  the  arrangement  of  these  clans  in  camp, 
made  about  1850,  we  find  the  gtnUs  of  the  Pi-kun'-I 
under  such  pretty  titles  as  we  have  given.* 

To  return  from  America  to  Australia,  the  Narrinyeri 
tribe,  like  the  Sioux  and  Blackfeet,  have  reckoning  of 


1  Blackfooi  Lodge  Tales^  p.  ao8,  1893. 
•  Op,  cU.,  p.  225. 


''WRY  MOUTH"  AND  "CROOKED  NOSE"    133 

descent  in  the  male  line,  and,  like  the  Sioux,  have  local 
settlements  (called  "clans"  by  Mr.  Howitt),  and  these 
local  settlements  have  names.  Does  Mr.  Howitt  think  it 
likely  that  one  such  "  clan  "  called  itself  "  Where  shall 
we  go  ?  "  and  another  called  itself  "  Gone  over  there  "  ?  * 
These  look  to  me  like  names  given  by  other  groups. 
Tribes,  local  groups  ("clans"),  ^tnd  totem  kins  having 
names  already,  I  cannot  expect  to  show  Mr.  Howitt 
the  names  of  such  sets  of  people  in  the  act  of  being 
given  from  without  and  accepted.  But,  as  regards 
individuals,  they  "often  have  what  may  be  called  a 
nickname,  arising  from  some  strongly  marked  feature 
in  their  figures,  or  from  fancied  resemblance  to  some  animal 
or  plant "^  The  individuals  "answer  to"  such  nick- 
names, I  suppose,  but  they  cannot  evolve,  in  a  lifetime, 
respect  for  the  plant  or  animal  that  yields  the  nickname, 
because  they  cannot  forget  how  they  come  to  bear  it 

Obvious  at  a  glance  as  such  replies  to  such  objections 
are,  it  seems  that  they  have  not  occurred  to  the  objectors. 

If  we  want  to  discover  clans  adopting  and  glorying 
in  names  which  are  certainly,  in  origin,  derisive  nick- 
names, we  find  Clan  Diarmaid,  whose  name,  Campbell, 
means  "  Wry  Mouth/'  and  Clan  Cameron,  whose  name 
means  "Crooked  Nose."*  Moreover,  South  African 
tribes  believe  that  tribal  siioko,  as  Baboon  and  Alligator, 
may,  and  did,  arise  out  of  nicknames ;  for,  as  we  have 
seen,  their  myths  assert  that  nicknames  are  the  origin  of 
such  tribal  and  now  honourable  names.  I  cannot  prove, 
of  course,  that  the  process  of  adopting  a  name  given 
from  without  occurred  among  prehistoric  men,  but  I 

^  MUivi  Tribes  of  South-East  Australia^  p.  131. 
^  Spencer  and  Gillen,  Central  7>ibes,  p.  638. 
'  Macboin,  Gaelic  Etpnclogical  Dictionary, 


134         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

have  demonstrated  that,  among  all  sorts  and  conditions 
of  men  in  our  experience,  the  process  is  a  vera  causes 

Dismissing  my  theory,  Mr.  Howitt,  in  place  of  it, 
''could  more  easily  imagine  that  these  early  savages 
mighti  through  dreams,  have  developed  the  idea  of 
relationship  with  animals,  or  even  with  plants."  ^  They 
might ;  a  man,  as  in  the  case  given,  might  dream  of  a 
lace  lizard,  and  believe  that  he  was  one.  He  might  even 
be  named,  as  an  individual, ''  Lace  Lizard,"  but  that  does 
not  help  us.  Totem  names,  as  Mr.  Fison  insists,  are, 
and  always  were,  group  names.  But  Mr.  Howitt  "gets 
no  forrarder,"  if  he  means  that  the  children  of  his  Lace 
Lizard  become  a  totem  kin  of  Lace  Lizards,  for  under  a 
system  of  female  descent  the  man's  children  would  not 
be  Lace  Lizards.  Does  Mr.  Howitt  know  of  a  single 
instance  in  a  tribe  with  female  kin  where  the  children  of 
a  man  who,  on  dream  evidence,  believed  himself  to  be  a 
Kangaroo,  were  styled  Kangaroos  ?  He  must  adopt  the 
line  of  saying  that,  while  totemism  was  being  evolved, 
women  did  the  dreaming  of  being  Hakea  flowers, 
Witchetty  Grubs,  Kangaroos,  Emus,  and  so  forth,  and 
bequeathed  the  names  to  their  children.  But  he  will 
not  find  that  process  going  on  in  any  known  instance,  I 
fear. 

The  processes  of  my  hypothesis,  though  necessarily 
conjectural,  are  at  least  vera  causa^  are  in  human  nature, 
as  we  know  it.  A  curious  new  example  of  totems, 
certainly  based  on  sobriquets  not  derived  from  animals, 
occurs  among  the  Warramanga  tribe  of  Central  Australia. 
One  totem  kin  is  merely  called  ''The  Men"  {Kati)^  the 
name  which,  in  dozens  of  cases,  a  tribe  gives  to  itself. 
Another  totem  kin    is  called  "The  Laughing  Boys" 

^  Nativ€  Tribts  of  South-East  Australia^  p.  154. 


TOXEMIC  *' RELIGION"  135 

{ThabaUa\  a  name  which  is  obviously  a  nickname,  and 
not  given  from  within.  The  ThabaUa  have  found  it 
necessary  to ""  evolve  a  myth  about  descent  from  a 
giggling  boy  and  his  giggling  playmates,  and  to  practise 
magic  for  their  behoof,  as  they  are  supposed  not  to  be 
dead.  All  this  has  clearly  been  done  by  the  Laughing 
Boy  totem  kin  merely  to  keep  themselves  in  line  with 
other  totem  kins  named  from  lower  animal  form.^  This 
totem  name  can  have  been  nothing  but  a  group  nick- 
name.^ 

I  have  next  to  explain  the  nature  of  the  superstitious 
regard  paid  by  totemists  to  their  name-giving  animals. 

My  guess,  says  Dr.  Durkheim,  is  ''  difficult  for  those 
who  know  the  religious  character  of  the  totem,  the  cult  of 
which  it  is  our  object  to  explain.  How  could  a  sobriquet 
become  the  centre  of  a  regular  religious  system  ?  " 

Dr.  Durkheim  calls  the  system  ''  religious,"  and  adds 
that  I  ''leave  on  one  side  this  religious  aspect  of  totemism : 
but  to  do  so  is  to  leave  on  one  side  the  essential  factor  in 
the  phenomenon  to  be  explained." 

Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  left  no  element  of 
Australian  totemism  ''  on  one  side."  I  mentioned  every 
totemic  tabu  and  magical  practice  that  was  known  to 

*  Nortktm  Tribts^  pp.  ao7-aia 

*  I  am  unable  to  understand  how  Mr.  Howitt  can  say  that  he  knowi  no 
Anstralian  case  of  such  nicknames  being  adopted.  Mentioning  Mr.  Haddon's 
theory  that  groups  were  named  each  after  its  special  Tariety  of  food,  he  says 
"this  receives  support  from  the  fiict  that  analogous  names  obtain  now  in 
certain  tribes,  €^.  the  Yuin."  (C^.  cii^^  p.  154.)  I  understand  Mr.  Haddon 
to  mean  that  these  names  were  sobriquets  given  from  without  and  accepted. 
If  so,  Mr.  Howitt  does  know  such  cases  after  alL  Unluckily  he  gives  no 
instances  in  treating  of  Yuin  names,  unless  names  of  individuals  derived  from 
their  skill  in  catching  or  spearing  this  or  that  bird  or  fish  are  intended.  These 
exist  among  the  more  elderly  KumaL  (Op.  cit,,  ^  738.)  But  Mr.  Haddon  was 
not  thinking  of  such  individual  names  of  senior  men,  but  of  group  names. 
On  his  theory  Wolves  and  Ravens  were  so  styled  because  wolves  and  ravens 
were  their  chief  articles  of  diet. 


136         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

me.  But  I  do  not  (it  is  really  a  mere  question  of  words) 
describe  the  beliefs  as  "religious."  Dr.  Durkheim  does ; 
he  describes  them,  as  we  saw,  almost  in  ttib  terms  of  the 
Creed  of  St  Athanasius.  But  I  find,  in  Australia,  no 
case  of  such  religious  usages  as  praying  to,  or  feeding, 
or  burying,  the  totem.  Such  really  "religious"  rites 
are  performed,  in  Samoa,  for  example,  where  an  animal, 
once  probably  a  totem,  is  now  regarded  as  the  shrine 
or  vehicle  of  an  ancestral  spirit,  who  has  become  a  kind 
of  god,^  and,  in  Egypt,  the  animal  gods  had  once,  it 
seems  all  but  certain,  been  totems.  In  Australia,  to  be 
sure,  two  totems,  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow,  were  creators, 
in  some  myths.  So  far,  totemic  conceptions  may  be 
called  "  religious  "  conceptions,  more  or  less,  and  if  Dr. 
Durkheim  likes  to  call  totems  "gods,"  as  he  does,  he  has 
a  right  to  do  so.  The  difiFerence  here,  then,  is  one  of 
terminology. 

We  can  also  show  how  totems  in  Australia  become 
involved  in  really  religious  conceptions,  as  I  understand 
"religion,"  if  we  may  cite  Mr.  Howitfs  evidence.  Mr. 
Howitt  says  :  "  This  is  certain,  that  when  the  aboriginal 
legends  purport  to  account  for  the  origin  of  totemy,  that 
is  to  say  the  origin  of  the  social  divisions  which  are 
named  after  animals,  it  is  not  the  totems  themselves  to 
whom  this  is  attributed,  nor  to  the  black  fellows,  but  it 
is  said  that  the  institutions  of  these  divisions  and  the 
assumption  of  the  animal  names,  were  in  consequence  of 
some  injunction  of  the  great  supernatural  being,  such  as 
Bunjil,  given  through  the  mouth  of  the  wizard  of  the 
tribe."  *    "  Any  tradition  of  the  origin  of  the  two  classes" 

1  See  Tunier's  Samoa,  and  Mr.  Tylor,/.  A.  /.,  N.S.,  i.  p.  142. 
'  /.  A,  /.,  August  1888,  pp.  53,  54.    Also  Yolume  xiii.  p.  498.    Ct,  too 
J^ToHw  Tribes  of  SmUh-East  Australia^  pp^  89,  488,  498. 


DIVINE   SANCTION   OF  TOTEMISM        137 

(phratries)  *'  is  one  which  attributes  it  to  a  supernatural 
agency."^  Accepting  Mr.  Howitt's  evidence  (always 
welcomed  on  other  points),  one  source  of  the  "  religious  " 
character  of  totemism  is  at  once  revealed.  The  totemist 
obeys  the  decree  of  Bunjil,  or  Baiame,  as  the  Cretans 
obeyed  the  divine  decrees  given  by  Zeus  to  Minos. 

Though  I  had  not  observed  this  statement  by  Mr. 
Howitt,  still,  in  Social  Origins^  I  have  quoted  five  cases 
in  which  a  supernormal  being  or  beings,  licensed,  or 
actually  ordained,  the  totemic  rules,  thereby  giving  them, 
in  my  sense  of  the  phrase,  a  real  religious  sanction. 
Rules  with  a  religious  sanction,  vouched  for  by  a  myth 
which  explained  the  divine  origin  of  a  name,  might  well 
become  "  the  centre  of  a  veritable  religious  system."  * 

As  another  example  of  the  myth  that  totems  are  of 
divine  or  supernormal  institution,  Mrs.  Langloh  Parker 
gives  the  following  case  from  the  Euahlayi  tribe,  on  the 
Queensland  border  of  north-west  New  South  Wales. 
Their  nearest  Kamilaroi  neighbours  live  a  hundred  and 
fifty  miles  away,  but  they  call  their  '*  over-god,"  or  *' All 
Father,"  by  the  Kamilaroi  word  Baiame,  pronounced 
"Byamee";  in  other  respects  they  *'have  only  a  few 
words  the  same  as  the  Kamilaroi."  These  words,  how- 
ever, indicate,  I  think,  a  previous  community  of  language. 

Mrs.  Langloh  Parker  writes,  on  this  matter  of  the 
divine  institution  of  totems,  ''A  poor  old  blind  black 
fellow  of  over  eighty  came  back  here  the  other  day. 
He  told  me  some  more  legends,  in  one  of  which  was 
a  curiously  interesting  bit  about  the  totems.    The  legend 

1  /.  A.  /.,  August  188S,  p.  67. 

*  BuTMu  of  Ethnology  Hef&rt,  1892,  1893,  Part  I.  pp.  22,  23.  Howitt, 
Organisation  of  Australian  Tribes^  p.  134^  InfomuitioD  from  Mrs.  Langloh 
Parker.  These  sources  give  Menomini,  Dieri,  Murring,  Woeworung,  and 
Euahlayi  myths,  attributing  totemic  rules  and  names  to  divine  institution. 


138         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

was  about  Byamee,  and  it  spoke  of  him  as  having  a 
totem  name  for  every  part  of  his  body — even  to  a 
different  one  for  each  finger  and  toe.  No  one  had  a 
totem  name  at  that  time,  but  when  Byamee  was  going 
away  for  good  he  gave  each  division  of  the  tribe  one  of 
his  totems,  and  said  that  every  one  hereafter  was  to  have 
a  totem  name  which  they  were  to  take,  men  and  women 
alike,  from  their  mother;  all  having  the  same  totem 
must  never  marry  each  other,  but  be  as  brothers  and 
sisters,  however  far  apart  were  their  hunting  grounds. 
That  is  surely  some  slight  further  confirmation  of 
Byamee  as  one  apart,  for  no  one  else  ever  had  all  the 
totems  in  one  person;  though  a  person  has  often  a  second 
or  individual  totem  of  his  own,,  not  hereditary,  given 
him  by  the  wirreenuns  (sorcerers  or  medicine  men), 
called  his  yunbeai^  any  hurt  to  which  injures  him,  and 
which  he  may  never  eat — ^his  hereditary  totem  he  may." 

In  such  cases,  myths  give  a  '^ religious"  origin  for 
totemism. 

Tribes  which  have  religious  myths,  attributing 
totemism  to  the  decree  of  a  superhuman  being,  may 
also  have  other  myths  giving  quite  other  explanations. 
Thus  the  Dieri  were  said  to  have  a  fable  to  the  effect 
that  Mura-Mura,  ''the  creator,"  enjoined  totemism,  to 
regulate  marriage.^  Later,  Mr.  Howitt  learned  that 
''ill  the  plural  form  Mura-Mura  means  the  deceased 
ancestors.themselves."  >  In  fact,  in  the  plural,  the  Mura- 
Mura  answer  more  or  less  to  the  Alcheringa  men  of  the 
Arunta,  to  that  potent,  magical,  partly  human,  partly 
divine,  partly  bestial,  race,  which,  like  the  Greek  Titans, 

^  Howitt,  Kamilaroi  and  Kumai^  p.  25. 

>/.  A,  /.,  1888,  p.  498.  CI  NiUwt  Tribes  of  South- East  Austraiia, 
pp.  482-484.  Mura-Mun,  till  further  notice,  are  mythical  ancestors,  not 
reincarnated. 


MYTHS  OF  TOTEM  ORIGINS  139 

appears  in  so  many  mythologies,  and  "  airs "  the  world 
for  the  reception  of  man.  It  is  usual  to  find  a  divine 
word,  like  Mura-Mura,  in  the  plural,  meaning  this  kind 
of  race,  while  in  the  singular,  the  term  seems  to  denote 
a  deity.^ 

Whether  there  be  such  a  singular  form  of  Mura-Mura 
in  Dieri,  with  the  sense  of  deity,  I  know  not.  Mr.  Gason, 
an  initiated  man,  says  that  he  (Mura-Mura)  made  men 
out  of  Lizards.    Ancestral  spirits  are  not  here  in  question. 

Mr.  Howitt  now  knows  a  Dieri  myth  by  which  totems 
were  not  divinely  decreed,  but  were  children  of  a  Mura- 
Mura,  or  Alcheringa  female  Titan.  Or,  in  another  myth, 
as  animals,  they  came  out  of  the  earth  in  an  isle,  in  a 
lake,  and  ''  being  revived  by  the  heat  of  the  sun,  got  up 
and  went  away  as  human  beings  in  every  direction."  * 

Such  are  the  various  myths  of  the  Dieri.  Another 
myth  attributes  exogamy  to  a  moral  reformatory  move- 
ment, which,  of  course,  could  only  be  imagined  by  men 
living  under  exogamy  already. 

In  other  cases,  as  in  America  among  the  north-western 
peoples,  a  myth  of  ancestral  friendship  with  the  totem 
animal  is  narrated.  That  myth  is  conditioned  by  the  pre- 
vailing animistic  belief  that  a  man's  soul  is  reincarnated 
in  a  man,  a  beast's,  in  a  beast,  though  some  tribes  hold 
that  a  soul  always  incarnates  itself  in  but  one  species. 
The  Arunta  myth  is  that  semi-bestial  forms  became 
human,  and  that  the  souls  of  these  totem  ancestors  are 
reincarnated  in  human  children.  As  a  rule,  the  totem, 
being  explained  in  myth  as  a  direct  ancestor  of  the 
totemist,  or  a  kinsman,  or  as  the  animal  out  of  which  he 

1  Making  of  ReUgion^  p.  232,  1898. 

^  Assoc.  Adv.  Science^  p.  531,  and  Note  30,  1902.    For  other  discrepant 
myths,  cf.  Native  Tribes  o/S.E,  AusiraJia,  pp.  475, 482. 


I40         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

was  evolved,  receives  such  consideration  as  ancestral 
spirits,  where  they  have  a  cult,  obtain,  •  .  .  more  or  less 
religious.  All  these  facts  are  universally  known.  There 
is  here  no  conjecture.  I  do  not  need  to  guess  that  such 
more  or  less  religious  myths  of  the  origin  of  the  connec- 
tion between  totem  and  totemist  would  probably  be 
evolved.  They  actually  were  evolved,  and  a  large  collec- 
tion of  them  may  be  found  in  Mr.  Frazer's  ToUnUsm. 

In  but  one  case  known  to  me,  a  non-religious  and 
thoroughly  natural  cause  of  the  totem  name  is  given. 
Two  totem  kins  are  said  to  be  so  called  ''  from  having,  in 
former  times,  principally  subsisted  on  a  small  fish,  andta 
very  small  opossum."  These  are  but  two  out  of  seven  kins, 
in  one  Australian  tribe.  In  the  other  five  cases  the  totem 
kins,  according  to  the  myth,  are  descended  from  their 
totem  animals,  and,  of  course,  owe  to  them,  in  each  case, 
friendly  kinship  and  regard.^ 

Enfin,  it  sufiices  for  me  to  record  all  the  known  facts 
of  totemic  tabu  and  practice,  in  Australia,  and,  as  long  as 
I  give  them,  it  matters  very  little  whether  I  call  them 
"religious"  or  not.  They  certainly  are  on  the  frontiers 
of  religion  :  it  is  more  important  to  explain  their  evolu- 
tion than  to  dispute  about  the  meaning  of  a  term,  "  re- 
ligion," which  every  one  defines  as  he  pleases.  To  the 
evolution  of  totemic  marriage  rules  out  of  a  certain 
belief  as  to  the  name-giving  animals  of  groups,  we  next 
turn. 

So  far  we  have  reached  these  results :  we  guess  that 
for  the  sake  of  distinction  groups  gave  each  other  animal 
and  plant  names.  These  became  stereotyped,  we  con- 
jecture, and  their  origin  was  forgotten.    The  belief  that 

1  Grey,    Vocabulary  of  tAe  Dialects  of  South*  IVostem  Australia.    That 
only  two  of  seven  totemi  in  one  tribe  were  explained  is  usually  OYerlooked. 


TOTEM   NAMES  ARE  GROUP  NAMES     141 

there  must  necessarily  be  some  connection  between 
animals  and  men  of  the  same  names  led  to  speculation 
about  the  nature  of  the  connection.  The  usual  reply  to 
the  question  was  jthat  the  men  and  animals  of  the  same 
names  were  akin  by  blood.  That  kinship,  with  animals^ 
being  peculiarly  mysterious,  was  peculiarly  sacred.  From 
these  ideas  arose  tabus,  and  among  others,  that  of  totemic 
exogamy. 

The  nature  and  origin  of  the  supposed  connection  or 
rapport  between  each  human  group  and  its  name-giving 
animal  is  thus  explained  in  a  way  consistent  with  uni- 
versally recognised  savage  modes  of  thinking,  and  with 
the  ordinary  process  by  which  collective  names,  even 
in  modern  times,  are  given  from  without.  Dr.  Pikler, 
Major  Powell,  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  Lord  Avebury,  Mr. 
Howitt,  and  others  have  recognised  that  the  names  are 
the  germ  of  totemism.  But  both  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer 
and  Lord  Avebury  appear  to  think  that  the  name  Eagle 
Hawk  or  Crow,  or  Wolf  or  Raven,  was  originally  that  of 
a  male  ancestor,  who  founded  a  clan  that  inherited  his 
name.  Thus  a  given  Donald,  of  the  Islay  family,  marry- 
ing a  MacHenry  heiress,  gave  the  name  ''MacDonald  "  to 
the  MacHenrys  of  Glencoe.  But  this  theory  is  impos- 
sible, as  we  must  repeat,  in  conditions  of  inheriting 
names  through  women,  and  such  were  the  conditions 
under  which  totemism  arose.  The  animal  name,  now 
totemic,  from  the  first  was  a  group  name,  as  Mr.  Fison 
argued  long  ago.  ''  The  Australian  divisions  show  that 
the  totem  is,  in  the  first  place,  the  badge  of  a  groups  not  of 
an  individual.  •  .  .  And  even  if  it  were  first  given  to  an 
individual,  his  family,  i^.  his  children,  could  not  inherit 
it  from  him."  *    These  are  words  of  gold. 

^  KamHaroi  and  Kumai.y,  165,  1880. 


CHAPTER  VII 

RISE  OF  PHRATRIES  AND  TOTEM  KINS 

How  phratries  and  totem  kins  were  developed — Local  animal-named  groups 
would  be  ezogamous — Children  in  these  will  bear  the  group  names  of 
their  mothers — Influence  of  tattooing — Emu  local  group  thus  full  of 
persons  who  are  Snipes,  Lizards,  &&,  hy  maternal  descent-^VitasAicn 
are  Emus  by  local  group  namo :  Snipes,  Lizards,  &c.,  by  nauu  of  descent 
— No  marriage,  however,  within  local  group^Reason,  survival  of  old 
tabu — Reply  to  Dr.  Durkheim — The  names  bring  about  peaceful  re- 
lations between  members  of  the  difierent  local  groups — ^Tendency  to 
peaceful  betrothals  between  men  and  women  of  Uie  various  local 
groups — Probable  leadership  of  two  strong  local  groups  in  this  arrange- 
ment— Say  they  are  groups  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow — More  than  two 
such  groups  sometimes  prominent — Probable  that  the  dual  alliance  was 
widely  imitated — The  two  chief  allied  local  groups  become  the  phratries 
— Tendency  of  phratries  to  die  out — ^Often  superseded  by  matrimonial 
classes — Meaning  of  surviving  phratry  names  often  lost,  and  why — 
Their  meaning  known  in  other  tribes— Members,  by  descent,  of  various 
animal  names,  within  the  old  local  groups  (now  phratries),  become  the 
totem  kins  of  to-day — Advantages  of  this  theory — Difficulties  which  it 
avoids. 

We  have  perhaps  succeeded  in  showing  how  totemism 
may  have  become  a  belief  and  a  source  of  institutions: 
we  have  shown,  at  least,  that  granting  savage  methods  of 
thought,  totemism  might  very  naturally  have  come  in 
this  way. 

Totemism  certainly  arose  in  an  age  when,  if  descent 
was  reckoned,  and,  if  names  were  inherited,  it  was  on 
the  spindle  side.  "  All  abnormal  instances^'*  writes  Mr. 
Howitt,  "  /  have  found  to  be  connected  with  changes  in  the 
line  of  descent.  The  primitive  and  complete  forms "  (of 
totemism) ''  have  uterine  descent,  and  it  is  in  cases  where 


ORIGIN  OF  PHRATRIES  143 

descent  is  counted  in  the  male  line  that  I  find  the  most 
abnormal  forms  to  occur."  ^ 

As  few  scholars  seriously  dispute  this  opinion  of 
Mr.  Howitt,  based  on  a  very  wide  experience,  and  forti- 
fied by  the  almost  universal  view  that  descent  was 
reckoned,  when  totemism  began,  in  the  female  line,  and 
as  the  point  is  accepted  by  every  author  whose  ideas  I 
have  been  discussing,  we  need  not  criticise  hypotheses 
which  assume  that  totemism  arose  when  descent  was 
reckoned  in  the  male  line,  or  that  totems  arose  out  of 
personal  manitus  of  males,  transferred  to  the  female  line. 

Now,  granting  that  our  system  so  far  may  afford  a 
basis  of  argument,  we  have  to  show  how  the  phratries 
and  the  totem  kins  within  them  might  be  logically  and 
naturally  developed. 

If  it  be  granted  that  exogamy  existed  in  practice,  on 
the  lines  of  Mr.  Darwin's  theory,  before  the  totem 
beliefs  lent  to  the  practice  a  sacred  sanction,  our  task  is 
relatively  easy.  The  first  practical  rule  would  be  that  of 
the  jealous  Sire, ''  No  males  to  touch  the  females  in  my 
camp,"  with  expulsion  of  adolescent  sons.  In  efiBux  of 
time  that  rule,  become  habitual,  would  be, ''  No  marriage 
within  the  local  group."  Next,  let  the  local  groups 
receive  names,  such  as  Emus,  Crows,  Opossums,  Snipes, 
and  the  rule  becomes,  ''No  marriage  within  the  local 
group  of  animal  name;  no  Snipe  to  marry  a  Snipe." 
But,  if  the  primal  groups  were  not  exogamous,  they 
would  become  so,  as  soon  as  totemic  myths  and  tabus 
were  developed  out  of  the  animal,  vegetable,  and  other 
names  of  small  local  groups. 

The  natural  result  will  be  that  all  the  wives  among 
the  heed  groups  called  Snipes  will  come  to  bear  names 

^  R€p.  R€g,  Smithsonian  InstUuUt  p.  Soi,  1883. 


144         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

other  than  Snipe,  will  come  to  be  known  by  the  names 
of  the  local  groups  from  which  they  have  been  acquired. 
These  names  they  will  retain,  I  suggest,  in  local  group 
Snipe,  by  way  of  distinction — as  the  Emu  woman,  the 
Opossum  woman,  and  so  forth.  The  Emus  know  the 
names  of  the  groups  from  ^diich  they  have  taken 
women,  and  it  seems  probable  enough  that  the  women 
may  even  have  borne  tattoo  marks  denoting  their  original 
groups,  as  is  now  in  some  places  the  Australian  practice. 
*'  It  probably  has  been  universal,"  says  Mr.  Haddon.^ 

If,  then,  the  stranger  women  among  the  Emus  are 
known,  in  that  local  group,  as  the  Opossum  woman,  the 
Snipe  woman,  the  Lizard  woman ;  their  children  in  the 
group  might  very  naturally  speak  of  each  other  as  ''the 
Snipe  woman's,  the  Lizard  woman's  children,"  or  more 
briefly  as  "the  little  Snipes,"  ''the  young  Lizards,"  and 
so  on.  I  say  ''might  speak,"  for  though  totem  names 
have  the  advantage  of  being  easily  indicated,  and  in 
practice  are  often  indicated  by  gesture  language,  I  take 
it  that  by  this  time  man  had  evolved  language.' 

In  course  of  time,  by  this  process  (which  certainly 
did  occur,  though  at  how  early  a  stage  it  came  first  into 
being  we  cannot  say),  each  heal  group  becomes  hetero- 
geneous. Emu  heal  group  is  now  full  of  members  of 
Snipe,  Lizard,  and  other  animal-named  members  by 
maUmal  descent.  There  are  thus  what  Mr.  Howitt  has 
called  "Major  totems"  (name-giving  animals  of  local 
groups),  and  "  Minor  totems  "  (various  animal  names  of 
male  and  female  members  within,  for  example,  local 
group  Emu,  these  various  animal  names  being  acquired 

*  EvchtHm  in  Art,  pp.  252-257. 

*  *'Thia  queatlon,  Minna  Murdti?"  ('*  What  totem?")  "can  be  pat  by 
gesture  lancuage,  to  which,  in  the  same  way,  a  suitable  reply  can  be  made." 
(Mr.  Howitt,  on  the  Dicri.    Rtf,  Ktg,  Smith,  Institute,  p.  804,  Note  i,  1883.) 


LOCAL  GROUP  145 

byftmaU  descent^.  Each  member  of  a  local  Emu  group 
is  now  Emu  by  local  group;  but  is  Snipe,  Lizard, 
Opossum,  Kangaroo,  or  what  not,  by  name  of  materfuU 
descent. 

This  theory  is  no  original  idea,  it  is  Mr.  McLennan's 
mode  of  accounting  for  the  heterogeneity  of  the  local 
group.  They  are  not  all  Wolves,  for  example,  where 
descent  is  reckoned  in  the  female  line,  and  exogamy  is 
the  rule.  In  the  local  group  Wolf  are  Ravens,  Doves, 
Dogs,  Cats,  what  you  will,  names  derived  by  the  children 
from  mothers  of  these  names.  I  do  not  pretend  that 
I  can  demonstrate  the  existence  of  the  process,  but 
it  accounts  for  the  facts  and  is  not  out  of  harmony 
with  human  nature.  Can  any  other  hjrpothesis  be 
suggested  ? 

When  things  have  reached  this  pitch,  each  local 
group,  if  it  understood  the  sitt$ation  as  it  is  now  understood 
among  most  savages^  might  find  wives  peacefully  in  its 
own  circle.  Lizard  man,  in  local  group  Emu,  might 
marry  Snipe  woman  also  in  local  group  Emu,  as  far  as 
extant  totem  law  now  goes.  They  were  both,  in  fact, 
members  of  a  small  local  tribe  of  animal  name,  with 
many  kins  of  animal  names,  by  female  descent,  within 
that  tribe.  Why  then  might  not  Snipe  (by  descent)  in 
Emu  load  group  marry  a  woman,  by  descent  Lizard,  in 
the  same  Emu  local  group  ?  Many  critics  have  asked 
this  question,  including  Dr.  Durkheim.^  I  had  given 
my  answer  to  the  question  before  it  was  asked,'  backing 
my  opinion  by  a  statement  of  Dr.  Durkheim  himself. 
People  of  different  totems  in  the  same  local  group  (say 
Emu)  might  have  married ;  but  then,  as  Dr.  Durkheim 
remarks  in  another  case,  ''  the  old  prohibition,  deeply 

1  Foik  Lan,  December  1903.  *  Social  Origins^  p.  56,  Note  i. 

K 


146         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

rooted  in  manners  and  customs,  survives."  ^  '^  Now  the 
old  prohibition  in  this  case  was  that  a  man  of  the 
Emu  (locat)  group  was  not  to  marry  a  woman  of  the 
Emu  (Jocctl)  group.  That  rule  endures,  even  though  the 
Emu  group  now  contains  men  and  women  of  several 
distinct  and  different  totem  kins/'  that  is  to  say,  of 
different  animal-named  kins  by  descent. 

I  may  add  that,  as  soon  as  speculation  about  the 
animal  names  led  to  the  belief  in  the  mystic  rapport 
between  the  animals  and  their  human  namesakes,  and 
so  led  to  tabu  on  the  intermarriage  of  persons  of  the 
same  animal  name,  the  tabu  would  attach  as  much  to 
the  name-giving  animal  of  the  local  group  as  to  the 
animals  of  the  kins  by  descent  within  that  local  group. 

Thus  Lizard  man,  in  Emu  local  group,  cannot  marry 
Snipe  woman  in  the  same.  Both  are  also,  by  local 
group  name,  Emus.  He  is  Emu-Lizard,  she  is  Emu- 
Snipe. 

If  it  be  replied  that  now  no  regard  is  paid  by  the 
members  of  a  phratry  to  their  phratriac  animal  (where 
it  is  known),  I  answer  that  the  necessary /o^oA  is  done, 
by  the  members  of  the  totem  kin  of  that  animal,  within 
his  phratry,  while  all  do  him  the  grace  of  not  marrying 
within  his  name.'  A  Lizard  man  and  a  Snipe  woman 
in  Emu  local  group  could  not,  therefore,  yet  marry. 
The  members  of  the  heal  group,  though  of  different 
animal  names  of  descent^  had  still  to  ravish  brides  from 
other  hostile  loccd  groups. 

Each  local  group  was  now  full  of  men  and  women 
who,  by  maternal  descent^  bore  the  same  animal  names 
as  many  members  of  the  other  local  groups.    A  belief  in 

^  UAnnU  SociohgiqtUt  v.  p.  106,  Note  I. 

'  The  Kamilaroi  are  said  to  offer  exceptions  to  this  rule. 


CONDITIONS  MAKING  FOR  PEACE       147 

a  mystic  rapport  between  the  bearers  of  the  animal 
names  and  the  animals  themselves  now  being  de- 
veloped, Snipe  and  Lizard  and  Opossum  by  descent^ 
in  Emu  local  group,  must  already  have  felt  that  they 
were  not  really  strangers  and  enemies  to  men  of  the 
same  names  by  descent^  Snipe,  Lizard,  and  Opossum,  and 
of  the  same  connection  with  the  same  name-giving 
animals,  in  Kangaroo  local  group,  or  any  other  adjacent 
local  group. 

This  obvious  idea — human  beings  who  are  somehow 
connected  with  the  same  animals  are  also  connected 
with  each  other — ^was  necessarily  an  influence  in  favour 
of  peace  between  the  local  groups.  In  whatever  local 
group  a  Snipe  by  descent  might  be,  he  would  come  to 
notice  a  connection  between  himself  and  Snipes  by 
descent  in  all  other  local  groups.  Consequently  men  at 
last  arranged,  I  take  it,  to  exchange  brides  on  amicable 
terms,  instead  of  Snipe  by  descent  risking  the  shedding  of 
kindred  blood,  that  of  another  Snipe  by  descent^  in  the 
mellay  of  a  raid  to  lift  women  from  another  local  group. 

If  two  strong  local  groups,  say  Emu  and  Kangaroo, 
or  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow,  took  the  lead  in  this  treaty  of 
alliance  and  connubium,  and  if  the  other  local  groups 
gradually  came  into  it  under  their  leadership  (for  union 
would  make  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow  powerful),  or  if 
several  local  groups  chose  two  such  groups  to  head 
them  in  a  peaceful  exchange  of  brides,  we  have,  in 
these  two  now  united  and  intermarrying  local  groups 
of  animal  name,  say  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow,  the  primal 
forms  of  the  actual  phratries  of  to-day. 

But  why  do  we  find  in  a  tribe  only  two  phratries  ? 
I  have  asked  myself  and  been  asked  by  others.  In  the 
first  place,  in  America,  we  note  examples  of  three  or 


148         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

more  phratries  in  the  same  tribe.  Again,  in  Australia, 
we  seem  to  myself  to  find  probable  traces  of  more 
than  two  phratries  in  a  tribe,  traces  of  what  Mr.  Frazer 
styles  ''sub-phratries,"  what  one  may  call  ''submerged 
phratries"  (see  Chapter  X.),  Further,  dual  alliances 
are  the  most  usual  form  of  such  combinations:  two 
strong  groups,  allied  and  setting  the  example,  would 
attract  the  neighbouring  groups  into  their  circle. 
Finally,  if  I  am  right  in  thinking  that  the  phratriac 
arrangement  arose  in  a  given  centre,  and  was  propa- 
gated by  emigrants,  and  was  borrowed  by  distant  tribes 
(^rfiich  is  a  point  elsewhere  discussed),  the  original 
model  of  a  dual  alliance  would  spread  almost  univer- 
sally, while,  as  has  been  said,  traces  of  more  numerous 
combinations  appear  to  occur. 

Except  as  parties  of  old  to  a  peaceful  arrangement, 
the  phratries,  as  they  at  present  exist  (where  they  exist), 
have  often  now  no  reason  for  existence.  Where  totems 
are  exogamous,  or  where  totems  and  matrimonial  classes 
exist,  the  phratry  is  now  an  empty  survival;  having 
done  its  work  it  does  no  more  work,  and  often  vanishes. 
If  members  of  heal  animal-named  groups,  become  fully 
totemic,  had  at  once  understood  their  own  position  as 
under  the  now  existing  totem  law,  they  could  have 
taken  wives  of  different  totems  of  disceut  each  in  their 
own  group,  without  any  phratries  at  all.  People  manage 
their  affairs  thus  in  all  totemic  parts  of  the  world  where 
there  are  no  phratries,  though,  for  what  we  know, 
phratries  may  have  existed,  and  vanished,  in  these 
places,  when  their  task  was  ended. 

Again,  phratries  die  out,  we  repeat,  even  in  America 
and  Australia.  In  some  regions  of  Australia  their  place 
has  been  taken  by  the  opposed  matrimonial  classes,  pro- 


BORROWING  THE   PHRATRIES  149 

hibiting  marriage  between  mothers'  and  sons',  fathers' 
and  daughters'  generations.  That  arrangement,  as  it  is 
not  found  in  the  most  primitive  Australian  tribes,  which 
have  only  phratries  and  totems,  must  be  later  than 
phratries  and  totems.  It  was  a  later  enactment,  within 
the  phratry,  and,  as  among  the  Arunta  and  Wiraidjuri, 
it  has  now  superseded  the  phratry.  The  matrimonial 
classes,  originally  introduced  within  each  pre-existing 
phratry,  now  regulate  marriage,  among  Arunta  and 
Wiraidjuri,  and  the  phratry  has  dropped  off,  its  name 
being  unknown,  like  the  flower  which  has  borne  its  fruit. 

Again,  in  Australia,  as  has  been  said,  we  shall  try 
to  show  that  phratries,  in  many  tribes,  are  perhaps  a 
borrowed  institution,  not  an  institution  independently 
evolved  everywhere.  That  is  rendered  probable  be- 
cause, among  many  tribes,  the  phratry  names  survive 
but  are  now  meaningless,  yet  these  same  phratry  names 
possess,  or  have  recently  possessed,  a  meaning  in  the 
language  of  other  tribes,  from  whom  the  institution 
may  apparently  (though  not  necessarily)  have  been 
borrowed  with  the  foreign  names  of  each  phratry. 

For  all  these  reasons,  phratries  seem,  in  some 
regions,  to  be  a  device  adopted,  by  some  tribe,  or 
tribes,  at  a  given  moment,  for  a  given  purpose  (peace), 
and  borrowed  from  them  by  some  other  tribes,  or  pro- 
pagated by  emigrants  into  new  lands.  Men  might 
borrow  the  nanus  of  the  phratries,  or  might  use  other 
names  which  were  already  current  designations  of  their 
own  local  groups.  The  purpose  of  the  phratry  organisa- 
tion, I  argue,  may  have  been  the  securing  of  peace  and 
alliance,  and  the  movement  may  have  been  originated, 
somewhere  in  Australia,  by  two  powerful  local  groups 
of  animal  name;  in  one  vast  region  known  as  Eagle 


ISO         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Hawk  and  Crow,  Mukwara  and  Kilpara,  and  by  other 
names  of  the  same  meaning.  Such  I  take  to  have  been 
the  mode  in  which  phratries  arose,  out  of  the  alliance 
and  connubium  of  two  local  groups,  say  Eagle  Hawk  and 
Crow;  or  of  more  than  two  groups.  Mr.  Frazer  says 
that  the  Moquis  of  Arizona  have  ten  phratries  (quoting 
Bourke,  Snakg  Dance,  p.  336),  and  the  Wyandots  have 
four ;  the  Mohegans  have  three.^  These,  or  other  groups, 
took  the  lead  in  recognising  the  situation,  namely,  that 
brides  might  be  peacefully  exchanged  among  local 
groups  becoming  conscious  of  common  kinship  in  their 
totems  fy  descent. 

Meanwhile,  in  the  various  otherwise  animal-named 
members  of  local  groups  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow — in  the 
men  and  women  within  local  groups  Eagle  Hawk  and 
Crow  who  were  Snipes,  Lizards,  Opossums,  and  so  on, 
fy  maternal  descent — ^we  have  the  forerunners  of  the 
totem  kins  within  the  phratries  of  to-day.  In  the  same 
way,  members  of  all  other  adjacent  local  groups  could 
also  come  into  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow  phratries  by 
merely  dropping  their  local  group -names,  keeping  their 
names  by  descent. 

We  have  not,  on  this  system,  to  imagine  that  there 
were  but  two  totem  groups  in  each  district,  at  the  be- 
ginning (a  thing  unlikely  to  happen  anywhere,  still  less 
always  and  everywhere),  and  that  many  of  their  members, 
hiving  off,  took  new  totem  names.  Our  scheme  gives 
us,  naturally,  and  on  Mr.  Darwin's  lines,  first,  many 
small  local  groups,  perhaps  in  practice  exogamous; 
then  these  local  groups  invested  with  animal  names; 

^  Tottmism,  pp.  60-62.  We  must  remember  that  American  writers  uie 
the  word  '*  phratry  '*  in  lereral  quite  difoent  semes ;  we  cannot  always  tell 
what  they  mean  when  they  use  it 


EVOLUTION  OF  PHRATRIES  151 

then,  the  animals  become  totems,  sanctioning  exogamy ; 
then  by  exogamy  and  female  descent,  each  animal- 
named  local  group  becomes  full  of  members  of  other 
animal  names  by  descent;  then  an  approach  to  peace 
among  all  the  groups  naturally  arises;  then  pacific 
connubium  between  them  all,  at  first  captained  by  two 
leading  local  groups,  say  Crow  and  Eagle  Hawk  (though 
there  is  noxeason  why  there  should  not  have  been  more 
of  such  alliances  in  a  tribe,  and  there  are  traces  of 
themV  and,  lastly,  the  allies  prevailing,  the  inhabitants 
of  a  district  became  an  harmonious  tribe,  with  two 
phratries  (late  local  groups),  say  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow, 
and  with  the  other  old  local  group-names  represented 
in  what  are  now  the  totem  kins  within  the  phratries. 
This  arrangement,  in  course  of  time,  is  perhaps  even 
borrowed,  foreign  phratry  names  and  all,  by  distant 
groups  hitherto  not  thus  organised. 

This  scheme,  it  will  be  observed,  is  in  harmony  with 
what  Mr.  Howitt's  knowledge  of  native  life  shows  him 
to  have  occurred.  From  the  beginning,  in  the  physical 
conditions  of  Australia,  no  horde  or  communal  mob 
could  keep  together,  for  lack  of  supplies.  No  assem- 
blage ''could  assume  dimensions  more  than  that  of  a 
few  members,"  before  it  was  broken  up  by  economic 
causes.*  There  were  thus,  in  a  district,  many  small 
groups,  not^  as  on  Dr.  Durkheim's  theory,  just  two  groups, 
broken  out  of  a  larger  horde  by  their  unexplained 
religious  devotion  each  to  its  own  god,  an  animal,  say 
Eagle  Hawk  for  one  group.  Crow  for  the  other.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  was  now  an  indefinite  number 

^  If  the  Uiabunna  rules  are  correctly  reported  on,  they  may  have  seveial 
"snb-phratries." 

«/.  i€./.,ni.  p.  497. 


152  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

of  small  local  groups,  each  of  animal  name,  each  con- 
taining members  of  as  many  names  of  descent  as  the 
local  groups  from  which  each  local  group  had  taken 
wives.  Such  groups  would  now  be  larger  than  mere 
hearth-circles,  in  proportion  as  improved  skill  in  fishing, 
net- making,  spearing,  and  trapping  animals,  and  in 
selecting  and  cooking  edible  vegetables  and  roots,  with 
improved  implements,  enabled  larger  groups  to  subsist 
in  their  territorial  area.  This  scheme  is  manifestly 
consistent  with  the  probable  economic  and  social  con- 
ditions, while  the  animal  group-names  are  explained  by 
the  necessity  under  which  the  groups  lay  to  di£Ferentiate 
each  other  by  names.  The  regard  later  paid  to  the 
name-giving  animals  as  totems  is  explained,  on  the 
ground  of  the  savage  theory  of  the  mystical  quality  of 
names  of  unknown  origin,  names  also  borne  by  animals, 
powerful,  wise,  m3rsterious  creatures. 

These  processes  must  have  occupied  long  ages  in 
evolution. 

This  hypothesis  escapes  the  difficulty  as  to  how  an 
incestuous  horde,  guided  by  an  inspired  medicine  man, 
could  ever  come  to  see  that  there  was  such  a  thing  as 
incest,  and  that  such  a  thing  ought  not  to  be  tolerated. 
We  also  escape  Dr.  Durkheim's  difficulty — How  did 
two  hostile  sects  of  animal  worshippers  arise  in  the 
<'  compact  mass  *'  of  the  horde ;  and  how  could  they, 
though  of  one  blood,  claim  separate  origins  7  We  also 
see  how  totem  kins  could  occur  within  the  phratries, 
without  needing  to  urge  alternately  that  such  kins  both 
do  and  do  not  possess  a  territorial  basis.  Again,  we 
have  not  to  decide,  what  we  can  never  know,  whether 
man  was  originally  gregarious  and  promiscuous  or  not. 
We  see  that  circumstances  forced  him  to  live  in  groups 


ADVANTAGES  OF  OUR  SYSTEM  153 

so  small  that  the  jealous  will  of  the  Sire  or  Sires  could 
enforce  exogamy  on  the  young  members  of  the  camp, 
a  prohibition  which  the  natural  conservatism  of  the 
savage  might  later  extend  to  the  members  of  the  animal- 
named  local  group,  even  when  heterogeneous.  How- 
ever heterogeneous  by  descent,  all  members  of  the  local 
group  were,  by  habitat,  of  one  animal  name,  and  when 
tabus  arose  in  deference  to  the  sacred  animal,  these 
tabus  forbade  marriage  whether  in  the  animal-named 
local  group,  or  in  the  animal  name  of  descent. 

So  far,  the  theory  ''marches,"  and  meets  all  facts 
known  to  us,  in  pristine  tribes  with  female  descent, 
phratries,  and  totem  kins,  but  without  ''matrimonial 
classes,"  four  or  eight  The  theory  also  meets  facts 
which  have  not,  till  now,  been  recognised  in  Australia, 
and  which  we  proceed  to  state. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

A  NEW  POINT  EXPLAINED 

On  oar  theorjr,  in  aich  phntrj  there  should  be  a  totem  km  of  the  phmtry 
name — If  not,  fintal  to  Dr.  Dnrkheiin's  and  Mr.  Fnuer*!  theories,  as  well 
as  to  oars— The  £ut  occurs  in  America :  why  not  in  Anstndia  ? — Questions 
asked  by  Mr.  Thomas— The  &ct,  totem  kins  of  phratriac  names  within 
the  phrttries,  does  occur  in  Australia — The  fisct  not  hitherto  obseired — 
Why  not  obserred — Three  causes — The  author's  conjecture — Evidence 
proTing  the  conjecture  sucoesslttl — Myth  fiivonring  Mr.  Fruer's  theoiy — 
Another  m3rth  states  the  author's  theoiy — JlitiJkwara  and  JCUpara  phiatry 
names — They  mean  Eagle  Hawk  and  Cro'w—Mukmara  and  KUpara 
remain,  as  phratry  names,  among  many  tribes  which  give  other  names 
to  Eagle  Hawks  and  Crows — The  Eagle  Hawk,  under  another  name,  is 
a  totem  in  Mukwara  (Esgle  Hawk)  phratry — The  Crow,  under  another 
name,  is  a  totem  in  KUpara  (Crow)  phratiy — ^Thus  the  position  is  the  suae 
as  in  America — List  of  examples  in  proof — ^Barinji,  Barkinji,  Ta-ta-thi, 
Keramin,  Wiraidjuri,  and  other  instances — Where  phratry  names  are 
lost^Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow  totems  are  still  in  opposiU  phiatries— Five 
examples — Examples  of  Cockatoo-named  phratries,  each  containing  its 
own  Cockatoo  totem — Often  under  new  names— Bee  phratries  with  Bee 
matrimonial  classes — Cases  of  borrowed  phratiy  and  class  names — 
Success  of  our  conjectures  Practical  difficulty  caused  by  clash  of  old 
and  new  laws — ^Two  totem  kins  cannot  legally  marry — Difficulty  evaded 
— ^These  kins  change  their  phratries — Shock  to  tender  consdenoes— 
Change  takes  the  line  of  least  resistance — Example  of  a  similar  change 
to  be  given. 

On  the  theory  propounded  in  the  last  chapter,  the  lead 
in  making  peaceful  alliance  and  amnubium  between 
exogamous  groups  previously  hostile,  was  probably 
taken,  and  the  example  was  set,  or  the  allies  were  cap- 
tained, by  two  or  in  some  cases  more  of  the  exogamous 
animal-named  local  groups  themselves.  Such  leading 
groups,  by  our  theory,  in  time  became  the  two  phratries 
of  the  tribe.     If  this  were  the  case,  these  two  kins, 

SS4 


AMERICA  AND  AUSTRALIA  155 

say  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow,  or,  among  the  Thlinkets 
in  America,  Wolf  and  Raven,  should  be  found  to-day 
among  the  totem  kins,  should  exist  not  only  as  names 
of  phratries,  but  as  names  of  totem  kins  in  the  phratries. 
If  they  are  not  so  fdund^  it  will  prove  a  serious  objec- 
tion, not  only  to  our  hypothesis,  but  to  that  of  Dr. 
Durkheim,  and  (at  one  time  at  least)  of  Mr.  ].  G.  Frazer. 
Their  theory  being  that  two  primary  totem  kins  sent 
off  colonies  which  took  new  totem  names,  and  that  the 
primary  kins  later  became  phratries,  in  the  existing 
phratries  we  should  discover  totem  kins  of  the  phratry 
names,  say,  totem  kin  Raven  in  Raven  phratry,  and 
totem  kin  Wolf  in  Wolf  phratry.  This  phenomenon  has 
been  noted  in  America,  but  only  faintly  remarked  on,  or 
not  at  all  observed,  in  Australia. 

Why  should  there  be  this  difference,  if  it  does  exist, 
in  the  savage  institutions  of  the  two  continents?  The 
facts  which,  on  either  theory — Dr.  Durkheim's  or  my 
own — were  to  be  expected,  are  observed  in  America; 
in  Australia  they  have  only  been  noticed  in  two  or  three 
lines  by  Mr.  Howitt,  which  have  escaped  comment  by 
theorists.  When  once  we  recognise  the  importance 
of  Mr.  Howitt's  remark,  that  in  some  phratries  the 
animals  of  phratry  names  ''are  also  totems,"  we  open 
a  new  and  curious  chapter  in  the  history  of  early 
institutions. 

As  to  America,  both  Mr.  Frazer  and  Dr.  Durkheim 
observe  that  "among  the  Thlinkets  and  Mohegans,  each 
phratry  bears  a  name  which  is  also  the  name  of  one  of 
the  clans,"  thus  the  Thlinkets  have  a  Wolf  totem  kin  in 
Wolf  phratry;  a  Raven  totem  kin  in  Raven  phratry. 
Mr.  Frazer  adds,  "  It  seems  probable  that  the  names  of 
the  Raven  and  Wolf  were  the  two  original  clans  of  the 


156         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Thlinkets,  which  afterwards,  by  subdivision,  became 
phratries."  * 

We  have  seen  the  objections  to  this  theory  of  sub- 
division (Chapter  V.  supra),  in  discussing  the  system  of 
Dr.  Durkheim,  who,  by  the  way,  gives  two  entirely 
different  accounts  of  the  Thlinket  organisation  in  three 
successive  pages ;  one  version  from  Mr.  Morgan,  the 
other  more  recent,  and  correct,  from  Mr.  Frarer."  Wolf 
and  Raven  do  not  appear  in  Mr.  Morgan's  version.' 

If  Mr.  Frazer's  view  in  1887  and  Dr.  Durkheim's 
are  right.  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow  phratries,  say,  are  in 
Australia  examples  of  the  primary  original  totem  kins, 
and  as  totem  kins  they  ought  to  remain  (as  Raven  and 
Wolf  do  among  the  Thlinkets),  after  they  become  heads 
of  phratries.  Again,  if  I  am  right,  the  names  of  the  two 
leading  local  groups,  after  becoming  phratries,  should 
still  exist  to  this  day  in  the  phratries,  as  names  of  totem 
kins.  This  is  quite  obvious,  yet  except  in  the  ThUnket 
case,  the  Haida  case,  and  that  of  the  Mohegans,  we 
never  (apparently)  have  found — what  we  ought  always 
to  find — within  the  phratries  two  totem  kins  bearing  the 

^  TcUmism,  p.  62.    Ct  McLennan,  StmUa,  Series  II.  pp.  369-371. 

*  L'AnfUs  Soiiciogiqust  L  pp.  5-7. 

'  It  is  not  plain  what  Mr.  Fraser  meant  when  he  wrote  {Tottmism^  p.  63), 
**  Qearly  split  totems  might  readily  arise  from  single  fiunilies  separating  from 
the  dan  and  expanding  into  new  dans."  Thus  a  male  of  '*  dan  **  Pelican  has 
the  personal  name  "  Pouch  of  a  Pelican."  But,  under  female  descent,  he 
could  not  possibly  leave  the  Pelican  totem  kin,  and  set  up  a  dan  named 
**  Pelican's  Pouch."  His  wife,  of  course,  would  be  of  another  **  dan,"  say 
Turtle,  his  children  would  be  Turtles ;  they  could  not  inherit  thdr  frther's 
personal  name,  **  Pouch  of  a  Pelican,"  and  set  up  a  Pelican's  Pouch  dan. 
The  thing  is  unthinkable.  *'  A  single  fiimily  sepaxmting  from  the  clan "  of 
female  descent,  would  tneritably  possess  at  least  (with  monogamy)  two 
totem  names,  those  of  the  fether  and  mother,  among  its  members.  The 
event  might  occur  with  male  descent,  if  the  names  of  individuals  ever  became 
hereditary  exogamous  totems,  but  not  otherwise.  And  we  have  no  evidence 
that  the  personal  name  of  an  individual  ever  became  a  hereditary  totem  name 
of  an  exogamous  dan  or  kin. 


TOTEM   KINS  OF  PHRATRIAC  NAMES    157 

same  animal  names  as  the  phratries  bear.  Why  is  this  7 
What  has  become  of  the  two  original,  or  the  two  leading 
local  animal-named  groups  and  totem  kins?  Nobody 
seems  to  have  asked  this  very  necessary  question  till 
quite  recently.^ 

What  has  become  of  the  two  lost  totem  kins  7 

Mr.  Thomas's  objection  to  an  earlier  theory  of  mine, 
in  which  the  two  original  totem  kins  were  left  in  the 
vague,  ought  to  be  given  in  his  own  words  :  <'  Mr.  Lang 
assumes"  (in  Social  Origins)  ''that  the  animals  of  the 
original  connubial  groups"  (phratries)  ''did  not  become 
totems,  and,  consequently,  that  there  were  no  totem 
kins  corresponding  to  the  original  groups.  This  can 
only  have  taken  place  if  a  rule  were  developed  that  men 
of  Emu  "  (local)  "  group  might  not  marry  women  of  the 
Emu  kin,  and  vice  versa.  This  would  involve,  however, 
a  new  rule  of  exogamy  distinct  from  both  group  (local) 
and  kin  (totem)  bars  to  marriage.  This  must  have  come 
about  either  (a)  because  the  Emu  kin  were  regarded  as 
potentially  members  of  the  Emu  group  (an  extension  of 
group  exogamy,  the  existence  of  which  it  would  be  hard 
to  prove),  or  {b)  because  the  Emu  group  or  Emu  kin  were 
(legally)  kindred,  and  as  such  debarred  from  marrying. 
...  In  either  case,  on  Mr.  Lang's  theory,  two  whole 
kins  were  debarred  from  marriage  or  compelled  to 
change  their  totems"  (when  phratries  arose).  "I  do 
not  know  which  is  less  improbable." 

Certainly  the  two  kins  could  not  change  their  totems, 
and  certainly  they  would  not  remain  celibate. 

Meanwhile  the  apparent  disappearance  in  Australia 
of  the  two  original,  or  leading,  totem  kins,  of  the  same 

^  It  was  first  pat  to  me  hf  Mr.  N.  W.  Thomas,  in  Man^  Januaiy  1904, 
Na2. 


158  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

names  as  the  phratries,  is  as  great  a  difficulty  to  Dr.  Durk- 
heim's  and  Mr.  Frazer's  old  theory  as  to  my  own,  only 
they  did  not  observe  the  circumstance. 

How  vanished  the  totem  kins  of  the  same  names  as 
the  phratries  ?  I  answer  that  they  did  not  vanish  at  all, 
and  1  go  on  to  prove  it.  The  main  facts  are  very  simple, 
the  totem  kins  of  phratry  names  in  Australia  are  often 
in  their  phratries.  But  at  a  first  glance  this  is  not 
obvious.  The  facts  escape  observation  for  the  following 
reasons : — 

(i)  In  most  totemic  communities,  except  in  Australia 
and  in  some  American  cases,  there  are  no  phratries,  and 
consequently  there  is  no  possible  proof  that  totem  kins 
of  the  phratriac  names  exist,  for  we  do  not  know  the 
names  of  the  lost  phratries. 

(2)  In  many  Australian  cases,  such  as  those  of  the 
Wiraidjuri  and  Arunta,  the  phratries  have  now  no 
names,  and  really,  as  phratries,  no  existence.  Dual 
divisions  of  the  tribes  exist,  but  are  known  to  us  by 
the  names  of  the  four  or  eight  ''matrimonial  classes" 
(a  relatively  late  development)^  into  which  they  are 
parcelled,  as,  among  the  Arunta,  Panunga,  Bulthara, 
Purula,  Kumara.* 

We  cannot  therefore  say  in  such  cases,  that  the  totem 
kins  of  phratriac  names  have  vanished,  because  we  do 
not  know  how  the  phratries  were  named;  they  may 
have  had  the  names  of  two  extant  totem  kins,  but  their 
names  are  lost 

(3)  Again,  there  are  Australian  cases,  as  of  the 
Urabunna  and  Dieri    of    Central   Australia,  in  which 

^  Mr.  Howitt  affirms  that  the  relative  lateness  of  these  classes,  as  sub- 
diTisions  of  the  phratries,  is  '*now  positively  ascertained.*'  {J.A,  /,  p.  143, 
Note.    XS85.) 

*  Spencer  and  GiUen./offfm. 


A  CORRECT  CONJECTURE  159 

the  phratries  have  names — Matthurie  and  Kirarawa 
(Urabunna),  or  Matter!  and  Kararu  (Dieri)— but  these 
phratry  names  cannot  be,  or  are  not  translated.  Mani- 
festly, then,  the  meaning  of  the  names  may  be 
identical  with  names  of  extant  totem  kins  in  these 
phratries,  may  be  names  of  obsolete  or  almost  obsolete 
sacred  meaning,  originally  denoting  totems  now  re- 
cognised by  other  names  in  the  everyday  language  of 
the  tribe. 

Confronted  by  the  problem  of  the  two  apparently  lost 
totem  kins,  those  of  the  same  names  as  the  phratries,  I 
conjectured  that  phratry  names,  now  meaningless  in  the 
speech  of  the  tribes  where  they  appear,  might  be  really 
identical  in  meaning  with  other  names  now  denoting 
totem  animals  in  the  phratries.  This  conjecture  proved 
to  be  correct,  and  I  proceed  to  show  how  my  con- 
clusion was  reached.  The  evidence,  happily,  is  earlier 
than  scientific  discussion  of  the  subject,  and  is  therefore 
unbiassed 

So  long  ago  as  1852  or  1853,  Mr.  C.  G.  N.  Lockhart, 
in  his  Annual  Report  to  the  Government  of  New  South 
Wales,  recorded  a  myth  of  the  natives  on  the  Lower 
Darling  River,  which  flows  from  the  north  into  the 
Murray  River,  the  boundary  between  New  South  Wales 
and  Victoria.^  The  tribes  had  the  phratries  named  by 
Mr.  Lockhart  Mookwara  and  Keelpara^  usually  written 
Mukwara  and  Kilpara.  These  were  the  usual  inter- 
marrying exogamous  phratries.  According  to  the 
natives,  Mukwara  and  Kilpara  were  the  two  wives  of 
a  prehistoric  black  fellow,  ''the  Eves  of  the  Adam  of 
the  Darling/'  Mr.  Lockhart  says — like  the  Hebrew  Lilith 
and  Eve,  wives  of  Adam^  Lilith  being  a  Serpent  woman. 

^  Curr,  Th€  Amiralian  Ract^  ii  p.  165.    Triibner,  London,  18S6. 


i62         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Hawk  as  a  totem  kin  ;  and  in  Kilpara,  Crowi  we  find, 
under  a$u)ther  nanu^  Crow  as  a  totem  kin.  In  many  other 
cases,  we  cannot  translate  the  phratry  names,  but,  by  a 
fortunate  chance,  the  meanings  of  Kilpara  and  Mukwara 
have  been  preserved,  and  we  see  that,  as  in  America,  so 
also  in  Australia,  phratries  contain  totem  kins  repre- 
senting the  phratry  animal-name  givers. 

We  proceed  to  give  instances. 

On  the  Paroo  River,  for  example,  are  the  Barinji ;  they 
call  the  Eagle  Hawk  ''Biliari,"  or  Billiara;  their  name 
for  Crow  is  not  given.^  But  among  the  Barinji,  Biliari, 
the  Eagle  Hawk,  is  a  totem  in  the  phratry  called  Muk- 
want,  which  means  Eagle  Hawk ;  Crow  is  not  given,  we 
saw,  but  here  at  least  is  the  totem  kin  Eagle  Hawk — 
Biliari — ^in  the  Eagle  Hawk  phratry,  called  by  the 
foreign,  and,  to  the  Barinji,  probably  meaningless  name, 
''  Mukwara  "  (Mak-quarra).'  This  applies  to  four  other 
tribes. 

The  Barkinji  have  the  same  phratry  names,  Mukwara 
and  Kilpara,  as  the  Barinji.  Their  totem  names  are  on 
the  same  system  as  those  of  the  Ta-ta-thi.  Among  the 
Ta-ta-thi  the  light  Eagle  Hawk  is  Waip-iUi^  he  comes  in 
Mukwarra,  that  is,  in  E^gle  Hawk,  phratry;  and  WalcJkiU 
(the  Crow),  among  the  Ta-ta-thi,  comes  in  Crow  (Kilpara) 
phratry.  The  Wiimbaio,  too,  have  totem  Eagle  Hawk 
in  Mukwara  (Eagle  Hawk)  and  totem  Crow  in  Kilpara 
(Crow). 

The  Keramin  tribe  live  four  hundred  miles  away 
from  the  Barinji.  They  have  not  the  same  name,  Biliari, 
for  the  Eagle  Hawk.     Their  name  for  Eagle  Hawk  is 

^  Cameron,/.  A,  /.,  ziv.  p.  348.     Naiwi  Tribes  pfS,E,  Australia^  p.  99. 
*  Biliarinthu  is  ft  cUn  mune  in  the  Woigftia  tribe  of  Central  Australia. 
(Spencer  and  Gillen,  /Northern  Tribes^  p.  747.) 


TOTEM   KINS  OF  PHRATRIAC  NAMES    163 

Mundhill.  This  totem,  Eagle  Hawk,  among  the  Kera- 
min,  appears  in  Eagle  Hawk  phratry  (Mukwara).  The 
Keramin  name  for  Crow  is  Wak.  He  occurs  in  Kilpara 
(Crow)  phratry.    All  is  as  by  my  theory  it  ought  to  be.^ 

None  of  these  tribes  has  ''matrimonial  classes/'  a 
relatively  late  device,  or  no  such  classes  are  assigned  to 
them  by  our  authorities.  These  tribes  are  of  a  type  so 
archaic,  that  Mr.  Howitt  has  called  the  primitive  type, 
par  excellence^  "  Barkinji." 

All  this  set  of  tribes  have  their  own  names,  in  their 
own  various  tongues,  for  ''Eagle  Hawk"  and  "Crow," 
but  all  call  their  phratries  by  the  foreign  or  obsolete 
names  for  "Eagle  Hawk"  and  "Crow,"  namely,  Mukwara 
and  Kilpara.  Occasionally  either  Crow  totem  is  not 
given  by  our  informants,  or  Eagle  Hawk  totem  is  not 
given,  but  Eagle  Hawk,  when  given,  is  always  in  Eagle 
Hawk  phratry  (Mukwara),  and  Crow,  when  given,  is 
always  in  Crow  phratry  (Kilpara).  Where  both  Eagle 
Hawk  and  Crow  totems  arc  given,  they  invariably  occur, 
Eagle  Hawk  totem  in  Mukwara  (Eagle  Hawk)  phratry, 
and  Crow  totem  in  Kilpara  (Crow)  phratry. 

In  the  Ngarigo  tribe,  the  phratries  are  Eagle  Hawk 
and  Crow  (Merung  and  Yukambruk),  but  neither  fowl  is 
given  in  the  lists  of  totems,  which,  usually,  are  not 
exhaustive.  The  same  fact  meets  us  in  the  Wolgal  tribe; 
the  phratries  are  Malian  and  Umbe  (Eagle  Hawk  and 
Crow),  but  neither  bird  is  given  as  a  totem.*  Mr. 
Spencer,  in  a  letter  to  me,  gives,  for  a  tribe  adjacent 
to  the  Wolgal,  the  phratries  Multu  (Eagle  Hawk),  and 
Umbe  (Crow);  the  totems  I  do  not  know.  Among  the 
Wiraidjuri  tribe,  Mr.  Howitt  does  not  know  the  phratry 

^  Native  Tribes  of  South- East  Australia^  pp.  98-100. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  102. 


i64         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

names,  but  the  tribe  have  the  Kamilaroi  class  names, 
and  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow,  as  usual,  in  the  opposite 
unnamed  phratries.  Among  a  sept  of  the  Wiraidjuri  on 
the  Lachlan  River,  the  phratry  names  are  Mukula  and 
Budthurung.  The  meaning  of  Mukula  is  not  given,  but 
Budthurung  means  ''Black  Duck"  and  Black  Duck 
totem  is  in  Black  Duck  phratry,  Budthurung  in  Bud- 
thurung, as  it  ought  to  be.^  Mr.  Howitt  writes  that 
there  is  ''  no  explanation  "  of  why  Budthurung  is  both  a 
phratry  name  and  a  totem  name.  The  fact,  we  see,  is 
usual. 

In  several  cases,  where  phratry  names  are  lost,  or 
are  of  unknown  meaning,  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow  occur 
in  opposiu  exogamous  moieties,  which  once  had  phratry 
names,  or  now  have  phratry  names  of  unknown  sig- 
nificance. The  evidence,  then,  is  that  Eagle  Hawk 
and  Crow  totems,  over  a  vast  extent  of  country,  have 
been  in  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow  phratries,  while,  when 
they  occur  in  phratries  whose  names  are  lost,  the  lost 
names  or  untranslatable  names  may  have  meant  Eagle 
Hawk  and  Crow.  Unluckily  the  names  of  the  phratries 
of  the  central  tribes  about  Lake  Eyre  and  south-west — 
Kararu  and  Matteri — are  of  unknown  meaning :  such 
tribes  are  the  Dieri,  Urabunna,  and  their  neighbours. 
We  do  indeed  find  Kuraru,  meaning  Eagle  Hawk,  in  a 
tribe  where  the  phratry  name  is  Kararu ;  and  Karawora 
is  also  a  frequent  name  for  Eagle  Hawk  in  these  tribes. 
But  then  Kurara  means  Rain,  in  a  cognate  tribe;  and 
we  must  not  be  led  into  conjectural  translations  of 
names,  based  merely  on  apparent  similarities  of 
sound. 

At  all  events,  in  the   Kararu- Matteri  phratries,  we 

^  Native  TrihiS  of  Soutk-East  Australia^  p.  107. 


COCKATOO-NAMED  PHRATRIES  165 

find  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow  opposed,  appearing  in 
opposite  phratries  in  five  cases,  just  as  they  do  in  tribes 
far  south.^  Again,  in  the  Kulin  *' nation,"  now  extinct, 
we  learn  that  their  phratries  were  Bunjil  (Eagle  Hawk) 
and  Waa  (Crow),  while  of  the  totems  nothing  is  known.' 
It  is  obvious  that  several  phratry  names,  capable  of  being 
translated,  mean  these  two  animals.  Eagle  Hawk  and 
Crow,  while  two  other  widespread  phratry  names,  Yun- 
garu  and  Wutaru,  appear  to  be  connected  with  other 
animals,  ^^The  symbol  of  the  Yungaru  division,"  says 
Mr.  Bridgman,  ^^is  the  Alligator,  and  of  the  Wutaru, 
the  Kangaroo."  *  Mr.  Chatfield,  however,  gives  Emu  or 
Carpet  Snake  for  Wutaru,  and  Opossum  for  Yungaru.* 

More  certain  animal  names  for  phratries  are  Kroki- 
Kumite ;  Krokitch-Gamutch  ;  Krokitch-Kuputch  ;  Ku- 
urokeetch-Kappatch ;  Krokage-Kubitch ;  all  of  which 
denote  two  separate  species  of  cockatoo;  while  these 
birds,  sometimes  under  other  nameSf  are  totems  in  the 
phratries  named  after  them.  The  tribe  may  not  know 
the  meaning  of  its  phratry  names.  Thus,  in  tribes  east 
of  the  Gournditch  Mara,  Kuurokeetch  means  Long-billed 
Cockatoo,  and  Kappatch  means  Banksian  Cockatoo,  as 
I  understand.^  But,  within  the  phratries  of  all  the 
Kuurokeetch-Kappatch  forms  of  names,  the  two  Cocka-* 
toos  also  occur  under  other  names,  as  totem  kins :  such 
names  are  Karaal,  Wila,  Wurant,  and  Garchuka.^ 

In  the  Annan  River  tribe,  Mr.  Howitt  gives  the 
phratries  as  Walar  (a  Bee),  and  Maria  (a  Bee),  doubtless 
two  Bees  of  different  species.^  In  this  case  two  names 
of  matrimonial  classes,  Walar  and  Jorro,  also  mean  Bee. 

^  Nativ  Tribe*  of  South-East  Austraiia^  pp.  91-94.        '  Ibid.,  p.  126. 

*  Kamilaroi  and  Kumai^  p.  40.     i88a  ^  Ibid.,  p.  41. 

*  NoHv  Tribes  of  South-East  Australia,  p.  125. 

*  Ibid.,  pp.  121-124.  V  Ibid.,  p.  118. 


i66  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

Other  cases  of  conjectural  interpretation  of  phratry 
names  might  be  given,  but  where  the  phratry  names 
can  be  certainly  translated  they  are  names  of  animals, 
in  all  Australian  cases  known  to  me  except  one.  When 
the  phratry  names  cannot  be  translated,  the  reason  may 
be  that  they  were  originally  foreign  names,  borrowed, 
with  the  phratriac  institution  itself,  by  one  tribe  from 
another.  Thus  if  tribes  with  totems  Eagle  Hawk  and 
Crow  (Biliara  and  Waa,  let  us  say)  borrowed  the  phra- 
triac institution  from  a  Mukwara-Kilpara  tribe,  they 
might  take  over  Mukwara  and  Kilpara  as  phratry  names, 
while  not  knowing,  or  at  last  forgetting,  their  meaning. 

Borrowing  of  songs  and  of  religious  dances  is  known 
to  be  conmion  in  the  tribes,  and  it  is  certain  that  the 
Arunta  are  borrowing  four  class  names  from  the  north. 
Again,  several  tribes  have  the  Kamilaroi  class  names 
(Ipai,  Kumbo,  Murri,  Kubbi),  but  have  not  the  Kamilaroi 
pkfohy  names,  Kupathin  and  Dilbi.  Thus  the  Wiraid- 
jurii  with  Kamilaroi  class  names,  have  not  Kamilaroi 
pkrairiest  but  have  Mukula  (untranslated),  and  Bud- 
thurung  (Black  Duck).  The  Wonghibon,  with  Kamila- 
roi doss  names,  hxve  phratries  Ngielbumurra  and  Muku- 
murra.  On  the  other  hand  the  Kaiabara  tribe,  far  north 
in  Queensland,  have  the  Kamilaroi  phratry  names  Dilebi 
and  Kubatine  (» Dilbi  and  Kupathin),  but  their  class 
names  are  not  those  of  the  Kamilaroi.^ 

It   may  be    that    some  tribes,  which    had  already 

pkratries  not  of   the   Kamilaroi  names,  borrowed  the 

Kamilaroi  classes^  while  other  tribes  having  the  Kamilaroi 

pkratries  evolved,  or  elsewhere  borrowed  classes  of  names 

not  those  of  the  Kamilaroi. 

Again,  when   the   four  or   eight    class  system  has 

^  Nativi  Trib€S  of  South-East  Australia,  p.  zi6. 


CONJECTURES  PROVED  CORRECT       167 

taken  firm  hold,  doing  the  work  of  the  phratries,  tribes 
often  forget  the  meaning  of  the  phratry  names,  or  forget 
the  names  themselves.  Once  more,  the  phratry  names 
may  once  have  designated  animals,  whose  names  were 
changed  for  others,  in  the  course  of  daily  life,  or  by 
reason  of  some  taboo.  All  these  causes,  with  the  very 
feeble  condition  of  Australian  linguistic  studies,  hamper  us 
in  our  interpretations  of  phratry  and  class  names.  Often 
the  tribes  in  whose  language  they  originally  occurred 
may  be  extinct.  But  we  have  shown  that  many  phratry 
names  are  names  of  animals,  and  that  the  animals  which 
give  names  to  phratries  often  occiu*,  in  Australia  as  in 
America,  as  totems  within  their  own  phratries. 
We  have  thus  discovered  the  two  lost  totem  kins  1 
Thus,  if  only  for  once,  conjectures  made  on  the 
strength  of  a  theory  are  proved  to  be  correct  by  facts 
later  observed.  We  guessed  (i.)  that  in  the  phratries 
should  be  totem-kin  animals  identical  with  the  phratriac 
animals.  We  guessed  (ii.)  that  the  phratriac  names  of 
unknown  sense  might  be  identical  in  meaning  with  the 
actual  everyday  names  of  the  totem  animals.  And  we 
guessed  (iii.)  for  reasons  of  early  marriage  law  (as  con- 
jectured in  our  system)  that  the  totem  kins  of  the  same 
names  as  the  phratries  would  be  found  each  in  the 
phratry  of  its  own  name— if  discovered  in  Australia 
at  all. 

All  three  conjectures  are  proved  to  be  correct.  The 
third  was  implied  in  Dr.  Durkheim's  and  Mr.  Frazer's 
old  hypothesis,  that  there  were  two  original  groups,  say 
Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow,  and  that  the  totem  kins  were 
segmented  out  of  them,  so  that  each  original  animal- 
named  group  would  necessarily  head  its  own  totemic 
colonies.    But  this,  in  many  cases,  as  we  have  seen, 


i68         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

is  what  it  does  not  do,  and  another  animal  of  its  genus 
heads  the  opposite  phratry. 

Not  accepting  Mr.  Prazer's  old  theory,  I  anticipated 
the  discovery  of  Eagle  Hawk  totem  kin  in  Eagle  Hawk 
phratry,  and  of  Crow  in  Crow  phratry,  for  reasons  less 
simple  and  conspicuous.  It  has  been  shown,  and  is 
obvious,  that,  by  exogamy  and  female  descent,  each  local 
group  of  animal  name,  say  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow,  would 
come  to  contain  members  of  every  group  name  exapt 
its  awn.  When  the  men  of  Crow  local  group  had  for 
generations  never  married  a  woman  of  Crow  name,  and 
when  the  wives,  of  other  names,  within  Crow  heal 
group  had  bequeathed  these  other  names  to  their 
children,  there  could  be,  in  Crow  local  group,  no  Crow 
by  descent^  nor  any  Eagle  Hawk  by  descent  in  Eagle 
Hawk  local  group. 

Suppose  that  these  two  local  groups,  each  full  of 
members  of  other  animal  names  derived  from  other 
groups  by  maternal  descent,  made  amnubium,  and 
became  phratries  containing  totem  kins.  Wkal,  then, 
would  be  the  marriageable  status  of  the  two  kins  which 
bore  the  phratry  names?  All  Crows  would  be,  as  we 
saw,  by  my  system,  in  Eagle  Hawk  phratry ;  all  Eagle 
Hawks  would  be  in  Crow  phratry  (or  other  phratries, 
or  "  sub-phratries,"  if  these  existed).  They  could  not 
marry,  of  course,  within  their  own  phratries,  that  was 
utterly  out  of  the  question.  But^  also^  they  could  not 
marry  into  the  opposite  phratries^  lately  local  groups^  because 
these  bore  their  ozvn  old  sacred  local  group  names*  For  the 
law  of  the  local  group  had  been,  "  No  marriage  within 
the  name  of  the  local  groups*  ''  No  Crow  to  marry  into 
local  group  Crow."  Yet  here  is  Crow  who,  by  phratry 
law,  cannot  marry  into  his  own  phratry.  Eagle  Hawk ; 


CLASH   OF  LAWS  169 

while,  if  he  marries  into  phratry  Crow,  he  contravenes 
the  old  law  of  ''  No  marriage  within  the  local  group  of 
your  own  name."  That  group,  to  be  sure,  is  now  an 
element  in  a  new  organisation,  the  phratry  organisation, 
but,  as  Dn  Durkheim  says  in  another  case,  ^'The  old 
prohibition,  deeply  rooted  in  manners  and  customs, 
survives."  ^ 

This  quandary  would  necessarily  occur,  under  the 
new  conditions,  and  in  the  new  legal  situation  created 
by  the  erection  of  the  two  animal-named  local  groups 
into  phratries. 

Two  whole  totem  kins,  say  Wolf  and  Raven,  or 
Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow,  were,  in  the  new  conditions, 
plus  the  old  legal  survival,  cut  ofiF  from  marriage.  If 
they  died  celibate,  their  disappearance  needs  no  further 
explanation.  But  they  do  not  disappear.  If  they 
changed  their  totems  their  descendants  are  lost  under 
new  totem  names ;  but,  if  totems  were  now  fully-blown 
entities,  they  could  not  change  their  totems.  They 
could,  however,  desert  their  local  tribe,  which  has  no 
tribal  **  religion  "  (it  sometimes,  however,  has  an  animal 
name),  and  join  another  set  of  local  groups  (as  Urabunna 
and  Arunta  do  constantly  naturalise  themselves  among 
each  other,  to-day),  or,  tkey  could  simply  chatige  their 
phratries  (late  their  local  groups).  Eagle  Hawk  totem 
l^n,  by  going  into  Eagle  Hawk  phratry,  could  marry 
into  Crow  phratry ;  and  Crow  totem  kin,  by  going  into 
Crow  phratry,  could  marry  into  Eagle  Hawk  phratry. 
This,  I  suggest,  was  what  they  did. 

This  would  entail  a  shock  to  tender  consciences,  as 
each  kin  is  now  marrying  into  the  very  phratry  which 
had  been  forbidden  to  it.    But,  if  totems  were  now  full 

^  VAfmU  Sociologiqui^  ▼.  p.  io6,  Note.    Social  Origim^  p.  56,  Note. 


I70         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

blown,  anything,  however  desperate,  was  better  than  to 
change  your  totem;  and  after  all,  Eagle  Hawk  and 
Crow  were  only  returning  each  into  the  new  phratry 
which  represented  their  old  local  group  by  maternal 
descent  Thus  in  America  we  do  find  Wolf  totem  kin, 
among  the  Thlinkets,  in  Wolf  phratry,  and  Raven  in 
Raven  phratry ;  with  Eagle  Hawk  in  Eagle  Hawk,  Crow 
in  Crow  phratries.  Cockatoo  and  Bee  in  Cockatoo  and 
Bee  phratries,  Black  Duck  in  Black  Duck  phratry,  in 
Australia. 

The  difficulty,  that  Crow  and  Eagle  Hawk  were  now 
marrying  precisely  where  they  had  been  forbidden  to 
marry  when  phratry  law  first  was  sketched  out,  has 
been  brought  to  my  notice.  But  the  weakest  must  go 
to  the  wall,  and,  as  soon  as  the  totem  became  (as 
Mr.  Howitt  assures  us  that  it  has  become)  nearer, 
dearer,  more  intimately  a  man's  own  than  the  phratry 
animal,  to  the  wall,  under  pressure  of  circumstances, 
went  attachment  to  the  phratry.  II  f out  se  maritr,  and 
marriage  could  only  be  achieved,  for  totem  kins  of  the 
phratry  names,  by  a  change  of  phratry. 

But  is  the  process  of  totem  kins  changing  their  local 
groups  (now  become  phratries)  a  possible  process  ? 
Under  the  new  regime  of  fully  developed  totemism  it 
was  possible  :  more,  it  was  certainly  done,  in  the  remote 
past,  by  individuals,  as  I  proceed  to  demonstrate. 


CHAPTER  IX 

TOTEMIC  REDISTRIBUTION 

The  totemic  redistribation — The  same  totem  is  nerer  in  both  phmtries — ^This 
cauiot  be  the  result  of  accident — Yet,  originally,  the  same  totems  must 
have  existed  in  both  phratries,  on  any  theory  of  the  origin  of  phratries — 
The  present  state  of  affiurs  is  the  result  of  legislation — To  avoid  clash  of 
phratry  law  and  totem  law,  the  totems  were  redistributed — No  totem  in 
both  phratries — Recapitulation — Whole  course  of  totemic  evolution  has 
been  surveyed — Oar  theory  colligates  every  known  ftict — ^Absence  of 
conjecture  in  our  theory — All  the  causes  are  vera  causa — Protest  against 
use  of  such  terms  as  "sex  totems,"  ''individual  totems,"  "mortuary 
totems,"  "sub-totems" — The  true  totem  is  hereditary,  and  marks  the 
exogamous  limit — No  other  is  genuine. 

That  the  process  of  changing  phratries  was  possible 
when  it  was  necessary  to  meet,  on  the  lines  of  least 
resistance,  a  matrimonial  problem  (there  must  always 
be  some  friction  in  law,  under  changed  conditions)  may 
be  demonstrated  as  matter  of  fact.  We  are  aware  of 
an  arrangement  which  cannot  have  been  accidental, 
which  evaded  a  clash  of  laws,  and  involved  the  changing 
of  their  phratries  by  certain  members  of  totem  kins. 

That,  at  some  early  moment,  the  name-giving  animals 
of  descent  had  become  full-blown  totems,  is  plain  from 
this  fact,  which  occurs  in  all  the  primitive  types  of 
tribal  organisation :  The  same  totem  never  exists  in  both 
phratries}  This  in  no  way  increases,  as  things  stand, 
the  stringency  of  phratry  law,  of  the  old  law,  ''No 
marriage  in  the  local  group/'  now  a  phratry.  But  it 
imposes  a  law  perhaps  more  recent,  ''No  marriage 
^  The  Anmta  exception  has  been  explained.    C£  Chapter  IV. 

X7I 


172  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

within  the  totem  name  by  descent,  and  the  totem  kin." 
The  distribution  of  totem  kins,  so  that  the  same  totem 
is  never  in  both  phratries,  cannot,  I  repeat,  be  the  result 
of  accident^  Necessarily,  at  first,  the  same  totem  must 
have  occurred,  sometimes,  in  both  of  the  local  groups 
which,  on  our  theory,  became  phratries.  Thus  if  E^gle 
Hawk  local  group  and  Crow  local  group  had  both  taken 
wives  from  Lizard,  Wallaby,  Cat,  Grub,  and  Duck  local 
groups,  these  women  would  bring  Wallaby,  Cat,  Grub, 
Lizard,  Duck  names  into  both  the  Eagle  Hawk  and 
the  Crow  local  groups.  Yet  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow 
phratries,  representing  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow  local 
groups,  never  now  contain,  both  of  them.  Snipe,  Duck, 
Gtub,  Wallaby,  Cat,  and  Emu  totem  kins.  Snipe, 
Duck,  and  Wallaby  are  in  one  phratry ;  Cat,  Grub,  and 
Emu  are  in  the  other. 

This  is  certainly  the  result  of  deliberate  legislation, 
whether  at  the  first  establishment  of  phratry  law,  or  later. 

If  the  theory  of  Mr.  Frazer  and  Dr.  Durkheim,  the 
theory  that  the  two  primal  groups  threw  ofiF  totem 
colonies,  be  preferred  to  mine,  it  remains  very  im* 
probable  that  colonies,  swarming  o£F  the  hostile  Crow 
group,  never  once  took  the  same  new  animal-names  as 
those  chosen  by  Eagle  Hawk  colonies :  that  the  Eagle 
Hawk  colonies,  again,  always  chose  new  totems  which 
were  always  avoided  by  the  Crow  colonies. 

It  would  appear,  then,  that  there  must  have  been 
a  time  when  several  of  the  same  totems  by  descent 
occurred  in  both  phratries,  or,  at  least,  in  both  the  local 
groups  that  became  phratries.  In  that  case,  by  phratry 
law,  a  Snipe  in  Eagle  Hawk  phratry  might  marry,  out  of 

^  Cf.  Social  Origins^  pfx  55-57,  in  which  the  author  fiuls  to  discover  uiy 
mode  bj  which  the  distribution  could  occur  mccidentaUy  or  automsticallx. 


TOTEMS  REDISTRIBUTED  173 

his  own  phratry,  in  Crow  phratry,  a  Snipe.  By  totem 
law,  however,  he  may  not  do  this.  There  was  thus  a 
clash  of  laws,  as  soon  as  totem  law  was  fully  developed, 
and  the  totems  were  therefore  deliberately  arranged 
so  that  one  totem  never  appeared  in  both  phratries. 
This  law  made  it  necessary,  when  Snipes  occurred  in 
both  phratries,  that  some  Snipes,  say,  in  Eagle  Hawk 
phratry,  must  cross  over  and  join  the  other  Snipes  in 
Crow  phratry,  or  vice  versa.  They  obviously  could  not 
change  their  totems,  and,  of  two  evils,  preferred  to 
change  their  phratry,  the  representative  of  their  old 
local  group.  Totems  were  beginning  to  override  and 
flourish  at  the  expense  of  phratries,  a  process  in  the 
course  of  which  many  phratry  names  are  now  of  un- 
known meaning,  many  phratry  names  have  even  ceased 
to  exist  (the  later  matrimonial  class  names  doing  all  that 
is  needed),  and  outside  of  Australia,  America,  and  parts 
of  Melanesia,  phratries  seem  not  to  be  found  at  all 
among  totemists — (the  Melanesians  have  only  rags  of 
totemism  left). 

But  where  totems,  under  male  kinship  (as  among  the 
Arunta),  have  decayed,  phratries,  named  or  nameless 
(and,  where  nameless,  indicated  by  the  opposed  matri- 
monial classes  in  Australia),  do  regulate  exogamy  stilL 

Thus  the  possibility  of  members  of  a  totem  kin 
changing  phratries,  as  we  suppose  Eagle  Hawk  and 
Crow  kins  to  have  done,  seems  to  have  been  demon- 
strated by  actual  fact,  by  that  redistribution  of  totem 
kins  in  the  phratries — never  the  same  totem  in  both 
phratries — which  cannot  be  due  to  accident,  and  is 
tmiversal,  except  in  the  Arunta  nation.  In  that  nation 
the  absence  of  the  universal  practice  has  been  explained. 
(Cf.  Chapter  IV.) 


174         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

It  is  clear  that  the  first  great  change  in  evolution  was 
the  addition  to  the  rule, ''  No  marriage  in  the  local  group 
of  animal  name,"  of  the  rule, ''  No  marriage  in  the  animal 
name  of  descent/'  or  totem,  the  totem  being  nearer  and 
dearer  to  a  man  than  his  local  group  name,  when  that 
became  a  phratry  name,  including  several  totem  kins. 

Now  that  this  feeling — ^to  which  the  totem  of  the  kin 
was  far  nearer  and  dearer  than  the  old  local  group 
animal  whence  the  phratry  took  its  name— is  a  genuine 
sentiment,  can  be  proved  by  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Howitt, 
who  certainly  is  not  biassed  by  a£Fection  for  my  theory — 
his  own  being  contrary.  He  says :  "  The  class  name " 
(that  is,  in  our  terminology,  the  phratry  name)  "is 
general^  the  totem  name  is  in  one  sense  ifuUvidual^  for 
it  is  certainly  nearer  to  the  individual  than  the  name  of 
the  moiety "  (phratry)  "  of  the  community  to  which  he 
belongs."  1  Again,  "It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
totems  seem  to  be  much  nearer  to  the  aborigines,  if  I 
may  use  that  expression,  than  the"  (animals  of?)  "the 
primary  classes,"  that  is,  phratries.' 

As  soon  as  this  sentiment  prevailed,  wherever  a  clash 
of  laws  arose  men  would  change  their  phratries,  rather 
than  change  their  totems,  and  we  have  seen  that,  to 
e£Fect  the  present  distribution  of  totems  (never  the  same 
totem  in  each  phratry),  many  persons  must  have  changed 
their  phratries,  as  did  the  two  whole  totem  kins  of  the 
phratriac  names,  on  my  hypothesis.  I  reached  these 
conclusions  before  Mr.  Howitt  informed  us  of  the 
various  dodges  by  which  several  tribes  now  facilitate 
marriages  that  are  counter  to  the  strict  letter  of  the 
law. 

It  seems  needless  to  dwell  on  the  objection  that  my 

1  /.  A.  /.,  August  i888,  p.  4a     *  Ibid.,  August  1888,  p.  53. 


ABSENCE  OF  CONJECTURE  175 

system  ^'does  not  account  for  the  fact  that  phratriac 
names — say  Eagle  Hawk,  Crow — are  commonly  found 
over  wide  areas,  and  are  not  distributed  in  a  way  that 
Mr.  Lang's  '  casual '  origin  would  explain."  ^ 

We  have  seen,  though  we  knew  it  not  when  the  objec- 
tion was  raised,  that  the  institutions  were  perhaps  in  some 
cases  diffused  by  borrowing,  from  a  centre  where  Kilpara 
meant  Crow,  and  Mukwara  meant  Eagle  Hawk;  and 
that  these  names,  and  the  phratriac  institution,  reached 
regions  very  remote,  and  tribes  in  whose  language  Kil- 
para and  Mukwara  have  no  everyday  meaning.  If 
borrowing  be  rejected,  then  the  names  spread  with  the 
spread  of  migration  from  a  given  Mukwara-Kilpara 
centre,  and  other  names  for  Eagle  Hawk  and  Crow 
were  evolved  in  everyday  life. 

Except  as  regards  late  **  abnormalities,"  we  have  now 
surveyed  the  whole  course  of  totemic  evolution.  May 
it  not  be  said  that  my  theory  involves  but  a  small 
element  of  conjecture?  Man,  however  he  began,  was 
driven,  by  obvious  economic  causes,  into  life  in  small 
groups.  Being  man,  he  had  individual  likes  and  dis- 
likes, involving  discrimination  of  persons  and  some 
practical  restraints.  A  sense  of  female  kin  and  blood 
kin  and  milk  kin  was  forced  on  him  by  the  visible  facts 
of  birth,  of  nursing,  of  association.  His  groups  unde- 
niably did  receive  names  ;  mainly  animal  names,  which 
I  show  to  be  usual  as  group  sohriquets  in  ancient  Israel 
and  in  later  rural  societies.  These  names  were  pecu- 
liarly suitable  for  silent  signalling  by  gesture  language ; 
no  others  could  so  easily  be  signalled  silently;  none 
could  so  easily  be  represented  in  pictographs,  whether 
naturalistic  or  schematised  into  "geometrical"  marks. 

^  N.  W.  ThomaSt  Afon,  January  1904,  No.  2. 


176         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

It  is  no  conjecture  that  the  names  exist,  and  exist  in  the 
di£Fused  manner  naturally  caused  by  women  handing  on 
their  names  to  their  o£Fspring,  as,  under  a  system  of 
reckoning  in  the  female  line,  they  do  to  this  day.  It  is 
no  conjecture  that  the  origin  of  the  totem  names  has 
long  been  forgotten. 

It  is  no  conjecture  that  names  are  believed,  by 
savages,  to  indicate  a  mystical  rapport^  and  transcen- 
dental connection,  between  the  name  and  all  bearers 
of  the  name.  It  is  no  conjecture  that  this  rapport  is 
exploited  for  magical  and  other  purposes.  It  is  no 
conjecture  that  myths  have  been  invented  to  explain 
the  rapport  which  must,  it  is  held,  exist  between  Emu 
bird  and  Emu  man,  and  so  in  all  such  cases.  It  is  no 
conjecture  that  the  myths  explain  the  rapport^  usually, 
as  one  of  blood  connection,  involving  duties  and  privi* 
leges.  It  is  no  conjecture  that  blood  is  held  sacred, 
especially  kindred  blood,  and  that  this  belief  involves 
exogamy, "  No  marriage  within  the  blood  of  the  man  and 
the  totem."  We  give  reasons  for  everything,  whereas, 
if  a  reformatory  bisection  of  a  promiscuous  horde  were 
made,  by  an  inspired  wizard,  why  did  he  do  it,  and  why 
should  each  moiety  take  an  animal  name?  Again,  if 
there  were  no  recognised  pre-existing  connection  between 
human  groups  and  animals,  why  should  one  group  do 
magic  for  one  animal,  rather  than  for  another,  in  cases 
where  they  do  this  magic  ? 

We  have  thus  reached  totefnism,  and  we  trace  its  vary- 
ing forms  in  the  light  of  institutions  which  grew  up  in 
the  evolution — ^under  changing  conditions-^f  the  law 
of  exogamy.  The  causes  are  demonstrably  vera  causa, 
conspicuously  present  in  savage  human  nature,,  and  the 
hypothesis  appears  to  colligate  all  the  known  facts. 


FALSE  ''TOTEMS"  177 

The  eccentric  and  abnormal  types  of  social  organisa- 
tion, as  Mr.  Howitt  justly  observes,  are  found  in  tribes 
which  have  adopted  the  reckoning  of  descent,  or  inheri- 
tance of  names,  in  the  male  line,  Phratry  names  lose 
their  meanings  or  vanish,  even  phratries  themselves 
decay,  or  are  found  with  names  that  can  hardly  be 
original,  names  of  cosmogonic  anthropomorphic  beings, 
as  in  New  Britain.  Totems,  under  male  descent,  become 
names  of  groups  of  locality,  and  local  limits  and  local 
names  (names  of  places,  not  totems)  come  to  be  the 
exogamous  bounds,  as  among  the  isolated  Kurnai. 

In  America,  magical  societies  of  animal  names,  and 
containing  members  of  many  totems,  have  been  evolved. 
But  we  must  not  fall  into  the  error  of  regarding  such 
societies  as  ''  phratries."  Nor  must  we  confuse  matters 
by  regarding  every  animal  now  attached  to  any  kind  of 
association  or  individual  as  a  totem.  Each  sex,  in  many 
Australian  tribes,  has  an  associated  animal.  Each  dead 
man,  in  some  communities,  is  classed  under  some  name 
of  an  object  of  nature.  Each  individual  may  have  a 
patron  animal  familiar  revealed  to  him,  in  a  dream,  or 
by  an  accident,  after  a  fast,  or  may  have  it  selected  for 
him  by  soothsayers.  The  totem  kins  may  classify  all 
things,  in  sets,  each  set  of  things  under  one  totem.  But 
the  animal  names  which  are  not  hereditary  or  exo- 
gamous are  not  judiciously  to  be  spoken  of  as  ''Sex 
Totems,"  "  Mortuary  Totems,"  "  Individual  Totems,"  or 
"Sub-totems."  They  are  a  result  of  applying  totemic 
ideas  to  the  sexes,  to  dead  men,  or  to  living  individuals, 
or  to  the  universe.  Perhaps  totemic  methods  and  style 
were  even  utilised  and  adapted  when  the  institution  of 
matrimonial  classes  was  later  devised. 


CHAPTER  X 

MATRIMONIAL   CLASSES 

Matrimonial  claiBet— Their  working  described— Prevent  penons  of  soooeHive 
genentions  from  intermarrying—- Child  and  parent  unions  forbidden  in 
tribes  without  matrimonial  classes  Obscurity  caused  by  ignorance  of 
philology — Meanings  of  names  of  classes  usually  unknown — Mystic 
names  for  common  objects— Cases  in  which  meaning  of  class  names  is 
known — They  are  names  of  animals — ^Variations  in  evidence — ^Names  of 
classes  from  the  centre  to  Gulf  of  Carpentaria — ^They  appear  to  be 
Cloud,  Eagle  Hawk  (?),  Crow,  Kangaroo  Rat— Uncertainty  of  these 
etymologies — One  totem  to  one  totem  marriages — Obscurity  of  evidence 
— Perhaps  the  so-called  "totems"  are  matrimonial  classes — Meaning 
of  names  fofgotten — Or  names  tabued — ^The  classes  a  deliberately  framed 
institution — Unlike  phratries  and  totem  kins — ^Theoxy  of  Hen-  Cunow — 
Lack  of  linguistic  evidence  for  his  theory. 

The  nature  of  the  sets  called  Matrimonial  Classes  has 
already  been  explained  (Chapter  I.).  In  its  simplest 
form,  as  among  the  Kamilaroi,  who  reckon  descent  in 
the  female  line,  and  among  the  adjacent  tribes  to  a 
great  distance,  there  exist,  within  the  phratries,  what 
Mr.  Frazer  has  called  "  sub-phratries,"  what  Mr.  Howitt 
calls  '^  sub-classes,"  in  our  term  *'  matrimonial  classes/' 
In  these  tribes  each  child  is  born  into  its  mother's 
phratry  and  totem  of  course,  but  not  into  its  mother's 
" sub-phratry,"  "sub-class,"  or  "matrimonial  class." 
There  being  two  of  these  divisions  in  each  phratry,  the 
child  belongs  to  that  division,  in  its  mother's  phratry, 
which  is  not  its  mother's.  That  a  man  of  class  Muri, 
in  Dilbi  phratry,  marries  a  woman  of  class  Kumbo,  in 
Kupathin  phratry,  and  their  children,  keeping  to  the 

mother's  phratry  and   totem,  belong   to  the  class  in 

178 


OBSCURE  CLASS  NAMES  179 

Kupathin  phratry  which  is  not  hers,  that  is,  belong  to 
class  Ipai,  and  so  on.  Children  and  parents  are  never 
of  the  same  class,  and  never  can  intermarry.  The  class 
names  eternally  differentiate  each  generation  from  its 
predecessor,  and  eternally  forbid  their  intermarriage. 

But  child-parent  intermarriages  are  just  as  unlawful, 
by  custom,  among  primitive  tribes  like  the  Barkinji,  who 
have  female  reckoning  of  descent,  but  no  matrimonial 
classes  at  all.  By  totem  law,  among  the  Barkinji,  a  man 
might  marry  his  daughter,  who  is  neither  of  his  phratry 
nor  totem,  but  he  never  does.  Yet  nobody  suggests 
that  the  Barkinji  once  had  classes  and  class  law,  but 
dropped  the  classes,  while  retaining  one  result  of  that 
organisation — no  parent  and  child  marriage.  The 
classes  are  found  in  Australia  only,  and  tend,  in  the 
centre,  north,  and  west,  under  male  descent,  to  become 
more  numerous  and  complex,  eight  classes  being  usual 
from  the  centre  to  the  sea  in  the  north. 

One  of  the  chief  obstacles  to  the  understanding  of 
the  classes  and  of  their  origin,  is  the  obscurity  which 
surrounds  the  meaning  of  their  names,  in  most  cases. 
Explorers  like  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  mention  no 
instance  in  which  the  natives  of  Northern  and  Central 
Australia  could,  or  at  all  events  would,  explain  the 
sense  of  their  class  names. 

In  these  circumstances,  as  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  divine  names  of  Sanskrit  and  Greek  mythology,  we 
naturally  turn  to  comparative  philology  for  a  solution 
of  the  problem.  But,  in  the  case  of  Greek  and  Sanskrit 
divine  names,  say,  Ath6n6,  Dionysus,  Artemis,  Indra, 
Poseidon,  comparative  philology  almost  entirely  failed. 
Each  scholar  found  an  ''equation,"  an  interpretation, 
which  satisfied  himself,  but  was  disputed  by  his  brethren. 


i8o  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

The  dhrine  names,  with  a  rare  exception  or  two,  re- 
mained impenetrably  obscure. 

If  this  was  the  state  of  things  when  divine  names 
of  peoples  with  a  copious  written  literature  were  con- 
cerned ;  if  scholars  armed  with  **  the  weapons  of  pre- 
cision "  of  philological  science  were  ba£Bed ;  it  is  easy  to 
see  how  penlous  is  the  task  of  interpreting  the  class 
names  of  Australian  savages.  Their  dialects,  leaving  no 
written  monuments,  have  manifestly  fluctuated  under 
the  operation  of  laws  of  change,  and  these  laws  have 
been  codiBed  by  no  Grimm. 

As  a  science,  Australian  philology  does  not  exist.  In 
1880  Mr.  Fison  wrote,  *^  It  is  simply  impossible  to  ascer- 
tain the  exact  meaning  of  these  words"  (changes  of 
name  and  grade  conferred  at  secret  ceremonies),  "  with- 
out a  very  full  knowledge  of  the  native  dialects,"  and 
without  strong  personal  influence  with  the  blacks.  .  .  . 
**  In  all  probability  there  are  not  half-a-dozen  men  so 
qualified  in  the  whole  Australian  continent"  * 

The  habit  of  using,  in  the  case  of  the  initiate,  mystic 
terms  even  for  the  everyday  names  of  animals,  greatly 
complicates  the  problem.  It  does  not  appear  that  most 
of  the  recorders  of  the  facts  know  even  one  native 
dialect  as  Dr.  Walter  Roth  knows  some  dialects  of 
North-West  Central  Queensland.  In  the  south-east, 
Kamilaroi  was  seriously  studied,  long  ago,  by  Mr.  Threl- 
keld  and  Mr.  Ridley,  who  uTote  tracts  in  that  language. 
Sir  George  Grey  and  Mr.  Matthews,  with  many  others, 
have  compiled  vocabularies,  the  result  of  studies  of 
their  ow^n,  and  Mr.  Curr  collected  brief  glossaries  of  very 
many  tribes,  by  aid  of  correspondents  without  linguistic 
training. 

*  Kamilarci  and  Kumai^  pp.  59,  60. 


NAMES  OF   KNOWN   MEANING  x8i 

Into  this  ignorance  as  to  the  meanings  of  the  names 
of  matrimonial  classes,  Mr.  Howitt  brings  a  faint  little 
gleam  of  light  In  a  few  cases,  he  thinks,  the  meaning 
of  class  and  *'  sub-class  "  names  is  ascertained.  Among 
the  Kuinmurbura  tribe,  between  Broad  Sound  and 
Shoalwater  Bay,  the  ''sub-classes"  (our  ''matrimonial 
classes  ")  "  were  totems."  By  this  Mr.  Howitt  obviously 
means  that  the  classes  bore  animal  names.  They  meant 
(i.)  the  Barrimundi,  (ii.)  a  Hawk,  (iii.)  Good  Water,  and 
(iv.)  Iguana.^  For  the  Annan  River  tribe,  he  gives  "  sub- 
classes" (our  "matrimonial  classes"),  (i.)  Eagle  Hawk, 
(ii.)  Bee,  (iii.)  Salt-Water-Eagle  Hawk,  (iv.)  Bee.>  This 
is  not  very  satisfactory.  In  previous  works  he  gave  so 
many  animal  names  for  his  "  sub-classes,"  Mr.  Frazer's 
"sub-phratries"  (our  "matrimonial  classes"),  that  Mr. 
Frazer  wrote,  "  It  seems  to  follow  that  the  sub-phratries 
of  the  Kamilaroi  (Muri,  Kubi,  Ipai,  and  Kumbo)  have,  or 
once  had,  totems  also,"  that  is,  had  names  derived  from 
animals  or  other  objects." 

Mr.  Howitt  himself  at  one  time  appeared  to  hold  that 
the  names  of  the  matrimonial  classes  are  often  animal 
names.  His  phraseology  here  is  not  very  lucid.  "The 
main  sections  themselves  are  frequently,  probably  always, 
distinguished  by  totems."  Here  he  certainly  means  that 
the  phratries  have  usually  animal  names,  though  we  are 
not  told  that  the  phratries,  as  such,  treat  their  name- 
giving  animal,  even  when  they  know  the  meaning  of  its 
name,  "with  the  decencies  of  a  totem."  Mr.  Howitt 
goes  on,  "The  probability  is  that  they  are  all"  (that  all 
the  classes  are)  "totems."^    By  this  Mr.  Howitt  perhaps 

^  NaHv€  Tribes  of  Sotak-Bast  Australia^  p.  ill. 
Mbid.,p.  118. 

*  Tftimism,  p.  S4.    Cf.  Kamilaroi  and  Xumai,  p.  41. 

*  /.  A.  /.,  1885,  p^  143.    Cf.  Note  4. 


i82  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

intends  to  say  that  all  the  ''classes"  (both  the  phratries 
and  the  matrimonial  classes)  probably  have  animal  or 
other  such  names. 

Again,  the  class  names  of  the  Kiabara  tribe  were  said 
to  denote  four  animals — ^Turtle,  Bat,  Carpet  Snake,  Cat.^ 
But  now  (1904)  the  Kiabara  class  names  are  given  with- 
out translation,  and  the  four  animals  are  thrown  into  the 
list  of  totems,  with  Flood  Water  and  Lightning  totems 
(which  names  were  previously  given  as  translations  of 
Kubatine  and  Dilebi,  the  phratry  names).'  Doubtless 
Mr.  Howitt  has  received  more  recent  information, 
but,  if  we  accept  what  he  now  gives  us,  the  mean- 
ings of  his  '' sub-class  **  names  are  only  ascertained 
in  the  cases  of  two  tribes,  and  then  are  names  of 
animals. 

I  spent  some  labour  in  examining  the  class  names  of 
the  tribes  studied  by  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen,  from 
the  Anmta  in  the  centre  to  the  Tingilli  at  Powell's 
Creek,  after  which  point  our  authors  no  longer  marched 
due  north,  but  turned  east,  at  a  right  angle,  reaching 
the  sea,  and  the  Binbinga,  the  Mara,  and  Anula  coast 
tribes,  on  or  near  the  MacArthur  River.  The  class 
names  of  these  coastal  tribes  did  not  resemble  those 
of  the  central  tribes.  But  if  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen 
had  held  north  by^west,  in  place  of  turning  due  east 
from  Newcastle  Waters,  they  would  have  found,  as  far 
as  the  sea  at  Nichol  Bay,  four  classes  whose  names  closely 
resemble  the  class  names  of  the  central  tribes,  and  are 
reported  as  Paljarie,  or  Paliali,  or  Palyeery  (clearly  the 
Umbaia  and  Binbinga  Paliarinji),  Kimera  or  Kymurra, 
(obviously  Kumara),  Banigher,  or  Bunaka,  or  Panaka 

» /.  A,  /.,  xUi.  pp.  336, 341. 

*  Nativ€  Trib$s  ifSouik-East  Australia,  p.  116. 


GUESSES  AT  OTHER  NAMES  183 

(Panunga,  cf.  Dieri  Kanunka  »  Bush  Wallaby},^  and 
Boorungo,  or  Paronga.* 

It  thus  appears  scarcely  doubtful  that,  from  the 
Arunta  in  the  centre,  to  the  furthest  north,  several  of  the 
class  names  are  of  the  same  linguistic  origin,  and — 
whether  by  original  commtmity  of  speech,  or  by  dint  of 
borrowing — ^had  once  the  same  significance.  Now  we 
can  show  that  some  of  these  names,  in  the  dialects  of 
one  tribe  or  another,  denote  objects  in  nature.  Thus 
Warramunga  T'yupiU  (Tj  being  an  affix)  at  least  sug- 
gests the  Dieri  totem,  Upakiy  ''Cloud."  BiUarinihu^  in 
the  same  way,  suggests  the  Barinji  BUiari^  ''Eagle 
Hawk,"  or  the  Umbaia  Paliarinji.  Ungalla^  or  ThungaUa^ 
is  Arunta  Ungilla^  "Crow,"  the  Ungdla,  or  UngSla, 
"Crow"  of  the  Yaroinga  and  Undekerabina  of  North- 
West  Queensland,'  while  Panunga^  Banaka^  Panaka^ 
resembles  Dieri  Kanunka — "Bush  Wallaby,"  or  Kan- 
unga,  "  Kangaroo  Rat." 

The  process  of  picking  out  animal  names  in  one  tribe 
corresponding  to  class  names  in  other  tribeSi  is  not  so 
utterly  unscientific  as  it  may  seem,  for  the  tribes  have 
either  borrowed  the  names  from  each  other,  or  have  a 
common  basis  of  language,  and  some  forms  of  dialectical 
change  are  obvious.  We  lay  no  stress  on  the  "equa- 
tions" given  above,  but  merely  o£Fer  the  suggestion  that 
class  names  have  often  been  animal  names,  and  hint  that 
inquiry  should  keep  this  idea  in  mind. 

I  do  not,  then,  ofiFer  my  "equations"  as  more  than 
guesses  in  a  field  peculiarly  perilous.    The  word  which 

^  /.  A.  /.,  August  1890,  p.  38. 

'  Kamiiarai  and  Kumai^  p.  36.  /.  A.  /.,  iz.  pp.  356,  357.  Corr,  L 
p.  298.  Austral,  Assoc,  Ado,  Scunee^  ii.  pp.  653,  654.  Journal  Roy,  Sac. 
N,S.  W,,  ▼ol.  xzzii.  p.  86.    R.  H.  Matthews. 

•  Roth,  p.  50. 


i84         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

means  ''fire"  in  one  tribe,  means '' snake "  in  another. 
"  What  fools  these  fellows  are,  they  call  'fire * ' snakes/  " 
say  the  tribesmen.  Howeveri  if  we  guess  right,  we  find 
Eagle  Hawk,  Crow,  Cloud,  and  Kangaroo  Rat,  as  class 
names,  over  an  enormous  extent  of  Central  and  Northern 
Australia.^ 

About  the  deliberate  purpose  of  the  classes  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  They  were  introduced  to  bar  marriages, 
not  between  parents  and  children,  for  these  are  for- 
bidden in  primitive  tribes,  but  between  persons  of  the 
parental  and  filial  generations.  Or  the  names  were 
given  to  stereotype  classes,  already  existing,  but  hitherto 
anonymous,  within  which  marriage  was  already  pro- 
hibited. To  make  the  distinction  permanent,  it  was 
only  necessary  to  have  a  linked  pair  of  classes  of 
difiFerent  names  in  each  phratry,  the  child  never  taking 
the  maternal  class  name,  but  always  that  of  the  linked 
class  in  her  phratry  (imder  a  system  of  female  descent). 
The  names  Red,  Blue,  Green,  Yellow,  would  have  served 
the  turn  as  well  as  any  others.  If  a  tribe  had  two  words 
for  young,  and  two  for  old,  these  would  have  served  the 
turn;  as 

Phratry 

^■^- jsr 

Phratry 

Kupatkin.    .    .    .     |  yJJ^g, 

Meanwhile,  in  our  linguistic  darkness,  we  are  only  in- 
formed with  assurance  that,  in  two  cases,  the  class  names 
denote  animals,  while  we  guess  that  this  may  have  been 
so  more  generally. 

^  Mr.  N.  W.  Thomas  helped  the  chaie  of  these  names,  without  claiming 
any  certainty  for  the  "  equations." 


URABUNNA  PECULIARITY  185 

According  to  Mr.  Howitt,  ''in  such  tribes  as  the 
Urabunna,  a  man,  say,  of  class  "  (phratry)  A,  is  restricted 
to  women  of  certain  totems,  or  rather  *'  his  totem  inter- 
marries only  with  certain  totems  of  the  other  class" 
(phratry).^  But  neither  in  their  first  nor  second  volume 
do  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen  give  definite  information 
on  this  obscure  point.  They  think  that  it  **  appears  to  be 
the  case  "  that,  among  the  northern  Urabunna, ''  men  of 
one  totem  can  only  marry  women  of  another  special 
totem."  '  This  would  seem  prima  facie  to  be  an  almost 
impossible  and  perfectly  meaningless  restriction  on 
marriage.  Among  tribes  so  very  communicative  as 
the  dusky  friends  of  Messrs.  Spencer  and  Gillen,  it  is 
curious  that  definite  information  on  the  facts  cannot 
be  obtained. 

Mr.  Howitt,  however,  adds  that  ''one  totem  to  one 
totem "  marriage  is  common  in  many  tribes  with  phra- 
tries  but  without  matrimonial  classes.'  Among  these 
are  some  tribes  of  the  Mukwara-Kilpara  phratry  names. 
Now  this  rule  is  equivalent  in  bearing  to  the  rule  of  the 
phratries,  it  is  a  dichotomous  division.  But  the  phratries 
contain  many  totems;  the  rule  here  described  limits 
marriage  to  one  totem  kin  with  one  totem  kin,  in  each 
phratry.  What  can  be  the  origin,  sense,  and  purpose 
of  this,  unless  the  animal-named  divisions  in  the  phratry 
called  "  totems  "  by  our  informants,  are  really  not  totem 
kins  but  "  sub-phratries "  of  animal  name,  each  sub- 
phratry  containing  several  totems  ?  This  was  Mr. 
Frazer's  theory,  based  on  such  facts  or  statements  as 

1  Naiiv€  TrOis  of  SoMtk-Sast  Australia^  P-  176.     Citing  Spencer  and 
Gillen,  p.  6a 

*  Northern  Tribti of  Ctmiral Australia^  p.  71,  Noted. 

*  Native  Tribes  of  South-Bast  Australia^  pp.  \%^\^ 


i86         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

were  accessible  in  1887.^  There  might  conceivably  be, 
in  some  tribes,  four  phratries,  or  more,  submerged,  and, 
as  bearing  animal  names,  these  might  be  mistaken  by 
our  informants  for  mere  totem  kins.  With  development 
of  social  law,  such  animal-named  sub-phratries  might 
be  utilised  for  the  mechanism  of  the  matrimonial  classes. 
In  many  tribes  the  meaning  of  their  names,  like  the 
meaning  of  too  many  phratry  names,  might  be  forgotten 
with  efflux  of  time. 

Or  again,  when  classes  were  instituted,  four  then 
existing  totem  names — ^two  for  each  phratry — might  be 
tabued  or  reserved,  and  made  to  act  exclusively  as  class 
names,  while  new  names  might  be  given  to  the  actual 
animals,  or  other  objects,  which  were  god-parents  to 
the  totem  kins.  Such  tabus  and  substitutions  of  names 
are  authenticated  in  other  cases  among  savages.  Thus 
Dr.  Augustine  Henry,  F.L.S.,  tells  me  that,  among  the 
Lolos  of  Yunnan,  he  observed  the  existence  of  kinships, 
each  of  one  name.  It  is  not  usual  to  marry  within  the 
name  ;  the  prohibition  exists,  but  is  decadent  If  a 
person  wishes  to  know  the  kin-name  of  a  stranger,  he 
asks :  "What  is  it  that  you  do  not  touch  ?"  The  reply 
is  "  Orange "  or  "  Monkey,"  or  the  like ;  but  the  name 
is  not  that  applied  to  orange  or  monkey  in  everyday  Hfe. 
It  is  an  archaic  word  of  the  same  significance,  used  only 
in  this  connection  with  the  tabued  name-giving  object 
of  the  kin.  The  names  of  the  Australian  matrimonial 
classes  appear  to  be  tabued  or  archaic  names  of  animals 
and  other  objects,  as  we  have  shown  that  some  phratry 
names  also  are. 

For  practical  purposes,  as  we  have  shown,  any  four 
difiFerent  class-titles  would  serve  the  turn,  but  pre-existing 

^  Tciimtsm^  pp.  64-67. 


CLASSES  DELIBERATELY   FRAMED      187 

laW|  in  phratries  and  totems,  had  mainly,  for  the  reasons 
akeady  ofiFered,  used  animal  and  plant  names,  and  the 
custom  was,  perhaps,  kept  up  in  giving  such  names  to 
the  new  classes  of  seniority.  Beyond  these  suggestions 
we  dare  not  go,  in  the  present  state  of  our  information. 

The  matrimonial  classes  are  a  distinct,  deliberately 
imposed  institution. 

In  this  respect  they  seem  to  differ  from  the  phratry 
and  totem  names,  which,  as  we  have  tried  to  show,  are 
things  of  long  and  unconscious  evolution.  But  con- 
scious purpose  is  evident  in  the  institution  of  matrimonial 
classes.  We  tentatively  suggest  that,  if  their  names  turn 
out  to  be  usually  names  of  animals  and  other  objects, 
this  occurs  because  animal-named  sub-phratries  once 
existed,  and  were  converted  into  the  mechanism  of 
the  classes ;  or  because  the  pre-existing  totemic  system 
of  nomenclature  was  preserved  in  the  development 
of  a  new  institution.  Herr  CunoVs  theory  that  the 
class  names  mean  ''Young,"  "Old,"  "Big,"  "Little" 
{Kubbi^Ktibbura^  "young";  Kumbo^Kombia^  Kumbia^ 
Gumboka^  "great  or  old"),  needs  a  wide  and  assured 
etymological  basis.^  Dr.  Durkheim's  hypothesis  ap- 
pears to  assume  that  "clans,"  exogamous,  with  female 
descent,  are  territorial,  which  (see  Chapter  V.)  is  not 
possible. 

Whatever  their  names  may  mean,  the  matrimonial 
classes  were  instituted  to  prevent  marriage  between 
persons  of  parental  and  filial  generations. 

^  DU  Verwandsckafts  Orgamsatwntn  der  Australmger,    Stuttgart,  1894. 


CHAPTER  XI 
MR.  FRAZER'S  THEORY  OF  TOTEMISM 

Mr.  Fnier's  latest  theory— Ooiely  akiii  to  that  of  Profeawir  Spenoer— 
Amnta  totemism  the  mogt  archaic — Proof  of  Anmta  priiiiitivenesi — 
Their  ignorance  of  the  fiKts  of  procreation — ^Bat  the  more  primitiTe 
ioath-eastera  tribes  are  not  ignorant  of  the  fiicts — Proof  from  Mr.  Howitt 
— ^Yet  soath-eastem  tribes  are  sabject  to  Mr.  Fraier's  supposed  canses 
of  ignorance — Mr.  Frasei's  new  theory  dted — Vo  accoont  taken  of 
primitive  tribes  of  the  southern  interior— -iSimikr  oversight  by  Mr.  Howitt 
as  regards  religion — Examples  of  this  oversight — Social  advance  does  not 
explain  the  religion  of  tribes  which  have  not  made  the  social  advance — 
Theory  of  borrowing  needed  by  Mr.  Howitt — Mr.  Franr's  suggestion  as 
to  the  origin  of  exogamy — Objections  to  the  suggestion. 

Throughout  these  chapters,  when  there  was  occasion 
to  mention  the  totemic  theories  of  Mr.  }.  G.  Frazer,  we 
have  spoken  of  them  with  reserve,  as  the  theory  of  this 
or  that  date.  Fortunately  his  article,  **  The  Beginnings  of 
Religion  and  Totemism  among  the  Australian  Aborigines/' 
in  the  Fortnightly  Review  (September  1905),  enables  us 
to  report  Mr.  Frazer's  latest,  perhaps  final,  hypothesis. 
"After  years  of  sounding,"  he  says,  ''our  plununets  seem 
to  touch  bottom  at  last." 

In  essence  Mr.  Frazer's  latest  hypothesis  is  that  of 
Professor  Baldwin  Spencer.  He  accepts  Pirrauru  as 
<<  group  marriage,"  and  holds  that  the  Arunta  retain  the 
most  archaic  form  of  totemism  now  known  to  exist.  In 
Chapter  III.  we  believe  ourselves  to  have  proved  that 
Pirrauru  is  not "  group  marriage  " ;  and  that  the  '*  classi- 
ficatory  names  for  relationships"  do  not  demonstrate  the 

x88 


THE  ARUNTA   PRIMITIVE?  189 

existence  of  "  group  marriage  "  in  the  relatively  near,  or 
of  promiscuity  in  the  very  distant  past. 

In  Chapter  IV.  we  show  that,  by  Professor  Spencer's 
statement,  the  Arunta  are  in  a  highly  advanced  social 
state  for  Australians.  Inheritance  of  local  office  (Ala- 
tunjaship)  and  of  the  paternal  totemic  ritual  goes  in  the 
male,  not  in  the  female  line  of  descent,  which  is  con- 
fessedly the  more  archaic.  (Mr.  Frazer,  however,  now 
thinks  this  point  open  to  doubt)  The  institutions  are 
of  a  local  character ;  and  the  ceremonials  are  of  what 
Professor  Spencer  considers  the  later  and  much  more 
complex  type.  Arunta  totemism,  Mr.  Spencer  shows, 
depends  on  the  idea  of  ancestral  spirits  attached  to  stone 
churinga  nanja^  amulets  of  various  forms  usually  in- 
scribed with  archaic  patterns,  and  these  churinga  nanja^ 
with  this  belief  about  them,  are  not  found  outside  of  the 
Arunta  region.  Without  them,  the  Arunta  system  of 
totemism  does  not,  and  apparently  cannot  exist  On 
this  head  Mr.  Frazer  says  nothing.  For  these  and  many 
other  reasons,  most  of  which  have  been  urged  by  Dr. 
Durkheim,  Mr.  Hartland,  Mr.  Marett,  and  other  students, 
we  have  explained  the  Arunta  system  as  a  late,  isolated, 
and  apparently  unique  institution.  As  the  Arunta  cere- 
monials and  institutions,  with  inheritance  in  the  male 
line  and  local  magistracies  hereditable  in  the  male  line, 
are  at  the  opposite  pole  from  the  primitive,  while  the 
Arunta  totemic  system  reposes  on  an  isolated  superstition 
connected  with  manufactured  stone  objects,  and  not  else- 
where found  in  Australia,  it  has  seemed  vain  to  regard 
Arunta  totemism  as  the  most  archaic. 

This,  however,  is  the  present  hypothesis  of  Mr. 
Frazer,  as  of  Mr.  Spencer,  and  he  adduces  a  proof  of 
Arunta  primitiveness  concerning  which  too  little  was 


x84         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

means  ''fire"  in  one  tribe,  means '' snake "  in  another. 
"  What  fools  these  fellows  are,  they  call '  fire '  *  snakes/  " 
say  the  tribesmen.  However,  if  we  guess  right,  we  find 
Eagle  Hawk,  Crow,  Cloud,  and  Kangaroo  Rat,  as  class 
names,  over  an  enormous  extent  of  Central  and  Northern 
Australia.^ 

About  the  deliberate  purpose  of  the  classes  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  They  were  introduced  to  bar  marriages, 
not  between  parents  and  children,  for  these  are  for- 
bidden in  primitive  tribes,  but  between  persons  of  the 
parental  and  filial  generations.  Or  the  names  were 
given  to  stereotype  classes,  already  existing,  but  hitherto 
anonymous,  within  which  marriage  was  already  pro- 
hibited. To  make  the  distinction  permanent,  it  was 
only  necessary  to  have  a  linked  pair  of  classes  of 
different  names  in  each  phratry,  the  child  never  taking 
the  maternal  class  name,  but  always  that  of  the  linked 
class  in  her  phratry  (under  a  system  of  female  descent). 
The  names  Red,  Blue,  Green,  Yellow,  would  have  served 
the  turn  as  well  as  any  others.  If  a  tribe  had  two  words 
for  young,  and  two  for  old,  these  would  have  served  the 
turn ;  as 

Phratry 

^'■^^ |S,r 

Phratry 

Kupa^Ain.    .    .    .     jV>2- 

Meanwhile,  in  our  linguistic  darkness,  we  are  only  in- 
formed with  assurance  that,  in  two  cases,  the  class  names 
denote  animals,  while  we  guess  that  this  may  have  been 
so  more  generally. 

^  Mr.  N.  W.  Thomas  helped  the  chase  of  these  names,  without  claiming 
any  certainty  for  the  "  equations." 


ARUNTA  IGNORANCE  191 

by  a  considerable  interval."  Je  ritn  vats  pas  la  nicessiti. 
Secondly,  savage  tribes  ''  allow  unrestricted  licence  of 
intercourse  between  the  sexes  under  puberty/'  and  thus 
''  familiarise  him  "  (the  savage)  '^  with  sexual  unions  that 
are  necessarily  sterile ;  from  which  he  may  not  un- 
nattually  conclude  that  the  intercourse  of  the  sexes  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  birth  of  ofiFspring."  The  savage, 
therefore,  explains  the  arrival  of  children  (at  least  the 
Arunta  does)  by  the  entrance  of  a  discamate  ancestral 
spirit  into  the  woman. 

The  conspicuous  and  closing  objection  to  this  theory 
is,  that  savages  who  are  at  least  as  familiar  as  the  Arunta 
with  (i)  the  alleged  remoteness  in  time  of  the  sexual  act 
from  the  appearance  of  the  first  symptoms  of  pregnancy 
(among  them,  such  an  act  and  the  symptoms  may  be 
synchronous),  and  (2)  with  licence  before  puberty,  are 
not  in  the  Arunta  state  of  ignorance.  They  are  under 
no  illusions  on  these  interesting  points. 

The  tribes  of  social  organisation  much  more  primi- 
tive than  that  of  the  Arunta,  the  south-eastern  tribes,  as 
a  rule,  know  all  about  the  matter.  Mr.  Howitt  says, 
'*  these  "  (south-eastern)  '*  aborigines,  even  while  count- 
ing descent — ^that  is,  counting  the  class  names — through 
the  mother,  never  for  a  moment  feel  any  doubt,  according 
to  my  experience,  that  the  children  originate  solely  from 
the  male  parent,  and  only  owe  their  infantine  nurture  to 
their  mother." ^  Mr.  Howitt  also  quotes  "the  remark 
made  to  me  in  several  cases,  that  a  woman  is  only  a 
nurse  who  takes  care  of  a  man's  children  for  him."  * 

Here,  then,  we  have  very  low  savages  among  whom 
the  causes  of  savage  ignorance  of  procreation,  as  ex- 

^  Journal  Anthrop,  InstUuU^  p.  502  (1882). 

*  Native  Tribes  of  South-East  Australia^  pp.  283,  284. 


192  THE   SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

plained  by  Mr.  Frazer,  are  present,  but  who,  far  from 
being  ignorant,  take  the  line  of  Athene  in  the  Eumtntdes 
of  iEschylus.  I  give  Mr.  Pale/s  translation  of  the 
passage : — 

**  The  parent  of  that  which  is  called  her  child  is  not 
really  the  mother  of  it,  she  is  but  the  nurse  of  the  newly 
conceived  foetus.  It  is  the  male  who  is  the  author 
of  its  being,  while  she,  as  a  stranger  for  a  stranger 
{i.e.  no  blood  relation)^  preserves  the  young  plant  .  •  ."* 
— EumenideSf  628-^31. 

These  south-eastern  tribes,  far  more  primitive  than 
the  Arunta  in  their  ceremonials,  and  in  their  social 
organisation,  do  not  entertain  that  dominant  factor  in 
Aruntadom,  the  belief  in  the  perpetual  reincarnation  of 
the  souls  of  the  mythical  ancestors  of  the  Akkeringa, 
That  belief  is  a  philosophy  far  from  primitive.  As 
each  child  is,  in  Arunta  opinion,  a  being  who  has  existed 
from  the  beginning  of  things,  he  is  not,  he  cannot  be,  a 
creature  of  man's  begetting.  Sexual  acts,  say  Messrs. 
Spencer  and  Gillen,  only,  at  most,  ''prepare"  a  woman 
for  the  reception  of  a  child — who  is  as  old  as  the  world ! 
If  the  Arunta  were  experimental  philosophers,  and 
locked  a  girl  up  in  Danae's  tower,  so  that  she  was 
never  "prepared,"  they  would,  perhaps,  be  surprised 
if  she  gave  birth  to  a  child. 

However  that  may  be,  the  Arunta  nescience  about 
reproduction  is  not  caused  by  the  facts  which,  according 
to  Mr.  Frazer,  are  common  to  them  with  other  savages. 
These  facts  produce  no  nescience  among  the  more 
primitive  tribes  with  female  descent,  simply  because 
these  primitive  tribes  do  not  share  the  far  from  primi- 
tive Arunta  philosophy  of  eternal  reincarnation.  If 
the  Arunta    deny  the  fact  of  procreation  among  the 


MR.  FRAZER'S  ORIGIN   OF  TOTEMS      193 

lower  animals,  that  is  because  **  the  man  and  his  totem 
are  practically  indistinguishable/'  as  Mr.  Frazer  says. 
What  is  sauce  for  the  goose  is  sauce  for  the  gander. 

The  proof  of  Arunta  primitiveness,  the  only  proof, 
has  been  their  nescience  of  the  facts  of  generation. 
But  we  have  demonstrated  that,  where  Mr.  Frazer's 
alleged  causes  of  that  nescience  are  present,  among  the 
south-eastern  tribes,  they  do  not  produce  it;  while 
among  the  Arunta,  it  is  caused  by  their  system  of  philo- 
sophy, which  the  south-eastern  tribes  do  not  possess. 

Mr.  Frazer  next  applies  his  idea  to  the  evolution  of 
a  new  theory  of  the  Origin  of  Totemism.  Among  the 
Arunta,  as  we  know,  each  region  has  its  local  centre  of 
totemic  spirits  awaiting  reincarnation,  one  totem  for 
each  region.  These  centres,  OinanikiUa,  are,  in  myth, 
and  for  all  that  I  know,  in  fact,  burial-places  of  the 
primal  ancestors,  and  in  each  is  one,  or  there  may  be 
more,  Nanja  trees  or  rocks,  permanently  haunted  by 
ancestral  spirits,  all  of  the  same  totem,  whose  stone 
amulets,  churinga  nanja^  are  lying  in  or  on  the  ground. 
When  a  woman  feels  a  living  child's  part  in  her  being, 
she  knows  that  it  is  a  spirit  of  an  ancestor  of  the  local 
totem,  haunting  the  Nanja^  and  that  totem  is  allotted  to 
the  child  when  born. 

Mr.  Frazer  from  these  known  facts,  deduces  thus  his 

new  theory  of  the  Origin  of  Totemism.    It  is  best  to  give 

it  in  his  own  words  :  * — 

<' Naturally  enough,  when  she  is  first  aware  of  the  mysterious 
movement  within  her,  the  mother  fancies  that  something  has  that 
very  moment  passed  into  her  body,  and  it  is  equally  natural  that  in 
her  attempt  to  ascertain  what  the  thing  is  she  should  fix  upon 
some  object  that  happened  to  be  near  her  and  to  engage  her  atten- 
tion at  the  critical  moment  Thus  if  she  chanced  at  the  time  to  be 

^  Fartnigkiiy  Rgouw,  pp.  455-458. 


x84  THE   SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

means  "fire"  in  one  tribe,  means '* snake "  in  another. 
"  What  fools  these  fellows  are,  they  call '  fire '  *  snakes/  '* 
say  the  tribesmen.  However,  if  we  guess  right,  we  find 
Eagle  Hawk,  Crow,  Cloud,  and  Kangaroo  Rat,  as  class 
names,  over  an  enormous  extent  of  Central  and  Northern 
Australia.^ 

About  the  deliberate  purpose  of  the  classes  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  They  were  introduced  to  bar  marriages, 
not  between  parents  and  children,  for  these  are  for- 
bidden in  primitive  tribes,  but  between  persons  of  the 
parental  and  filial  generations.  Or  the  names  were 
given  to  stereotype  classes,  already  existing,  but  hitherto 
anonymous,  within  which  marriage  was  already  pro- 
hibited. To  make  the  distinction  permanent,  it  was 
only  necessary  to  have  a  linked  pair  of  classes  of 
different  names  in  each  phratry,  the  child  never  taking 
the  maternal  class  name,  but  always  that  of  the  linked 
class  in  her  phratry  (under  a  system  of  female  descent). 
The  names  Red,  Blue,  Green,  Yellow,  would  have  served 
the  turn  as  well  as  any  others.  If  a  tribe  had  two  words 
for  young,  and  two  for  old,  these  would  have  served  the 
turn ;  as 

Phratry 

r^'it'  i  Jeune. 

^'^*' low. 

Phratry 

/CupatAin.    .    .    .     j  Vi««g 

Meanwhile,  in  our  linguistic  darkness,  we  are  only  in- 
formed with  assurance  that,  in  two  cases,  the  class  names 
denote  animals,  while  we  guess  that  this  may  have  been 
so  more  generally. 

1  Mr.  N.  W.  Thomas  helped  the  chase  of  these  names,  without  claiming 
any  certainty  for  the  '*  equations." 


MR.  FRAZER'S  THEORY  195 

if  my  conjecture  is  right,  is,  in  its  essence,  nothing  more  or 
less  than  an  early  theory  of  conception,  which  presented  itself 
to  savage  man  at  a  time  when  he  was  still  ignorant  of  the 
true  cause  of  the  propagation  of  the  species.  This  theory  of 
conception  is,  on  the  principles  of  savage  thought,  so  simple 
and  obvious  that  it  may  well  have  occurred  to  men  indepen- 
dently in  many  parts  of  the  world.  Thus  we  could  under- 
stand the  wide  prevalence  of  totemism  among  distant  races 
without  being  forced  to  suppose  that  they  had  borrowed  it  from 
each  other.  Further,  the  hypothesis  accounts  for  one  of  the 
most  characteristic  features  of  totemism,  namely,  the  intermingling 
in  the  same  community  of  men  and  women  of  many  different 
totem  stocks.  For  each  person's  totem  would  be  determined  by 
what  may  be  called  an  accident,  that  is,  by  the  place  where  his 
mother  happened  to  be,  the  occupation  in  which  she  was  engaged, 
or  the  last  food  she  had  eaten  at  the  time  when  she  first  felt  the 
child  in  her  womb;  and  such  accidents  (and  with  them  the 
totems)  would  vary  considerably  in  individual  cases,  though  the 
range  of  variation  would  necessarily  be  limited  by  the  number  of 
objects  open  to  the  observation,  or  conceivable  by  the  imagination, 
of  the  tribe.  These  objects  would  be  chiefly  the  natural  features 
of  the  district,  and  the  kinds  of  food  on  which  the  community 
subsisted;  but  they  might  quite  well  include  artificial  and  even 
imaginary  objects,  such  as  boomerangs  and  mythical  beasts. 
Even  a  totem  like  Laughing  Boys,  which  we  find  among  the 
Arunta,  is  perfectly  intelligible  on  tbs  present  theory.  In  fact, 
of  all  the  things  which  the  savage  perceives  or  imagines,  there  is 
none  which  he  might  not  thus  convert  into  a  totem,  since  there 
is  none  which  might  not  chance  to  impress  itself  on  the  mind  of 
the  mother,  waking  or  dreaming,  at  the  critical  season. 

**  If  we  may  hypothetically  assume,  as  the  first  stage  in  the 
evolution  of  totemism,  a  system  like  the  foregoing,  based  on  a 
primitive  theory  of  conception,  the  whole  history  of  totemism 
becomes  intelligible.  For  in  the  first  place,  the  existing  system 
of  totemism  among  the  Arunta  and  Kaitish,  which  combines  the 
principle  of  conception  with  that  of  locality,  could  be  derived 

xxviiL  (1899),  pp.  275-286;  J.  G.  Frazer,  "The  Origin  of  Totemism,'* 
Fortnightly  Reoiew^  April  and  May,  1899^  Fufther  reflection  has  led  me  to 
the  conclusion  that  magical  ceremonies  for  the  increase  or  diminution  of  the 
totems  are  likely  to  be  a  later,  though  still  very  early,  outgrowth  of  totemism 
rather  than  its  original  root  At  the  present  time  these  magical  ceremonies 
seem  to  constitute  the  main  function  of  totemism  in  Cmtral  Australia.  Bat 
this  does  not  prove  that  they  have  done  so  from  the  beginning.] 


196         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

from  this  hypothetical  system  in  the  simplest  and  easiest  manner, 
as  I  shall  point  out  immediately.  And  in  the  second  place,  the 
existing  system  of  the  Arunta  and  Kaitish  could,  in  its  turn, 
readily  pass  into  hereditary  totemism  of  the  ordinary  type,  as  in 
frict  it  appears  to  be  doing  in  the  Umbaia  and  Gnanji  tribes  of 
Central  Australia  at  present  Thus  what  may  be  called  conoep- 
tional  totemism  pure  and  simple  furnishes  an  intelligible  starting- 
point  for  the  evolution  of  totemism  in  general.  In  it,  after  years 
of  sounding,  our  plummets  seem  to  touch  bottom  at  last.** 

How  the  totemic  spirits  became  localised,  is,  Mr. 
Frazer  says,  **  aiatter  of  conjecture,"  and  he  guesses  that, 
after  several  women  had  felt  the  first  recognised  signs 
of  maternity,  ''in  the  same  place,  and  under  the  same 
circumstances  " — for  example,  at  the  moment  of  seeing 
a  Witchetty  Grub,  or  a  Laughing  Boy — ^the  site  would  be- 
come an  OknanikiUa  haunted  by  spirits  of  the  Laughing 
Boy  or  Grub  totem.^  The  Arunta  view  is  different ;  these 
places  are  burial-grounds  of  men  all  of  this  or  that  totem, 
who  have  left  their  churinga  nanja  there.  About  these 
essential  parts  of  the  system,  Mr.  Frazer,  as  has  been 
observed,  says  nothing.  His  theory  I  do  not  criticise,  as  I 
have  already  stated  my  objection  to  his  premisses.  ''  The 
ultimate  origin  of  exogamy  .  .  ."  he  says,  ''remains  a 
problem  nearly  as  dark  as  ever,"  but  is  a  matter  of 
deliberate  institution.  The  tribes,  already  totemic,  but 
not  exogamous,  were  divided  into  the  two  exogamous 
phratries,  and  still  later  into  the  matrimonial  classes, 
which  the  most  pristine  tribes  do  not  possess,  though 
they  do  know  about  procreation,  while  the  more  ad- 
vanced Arunta,  with  classes  and  loss  of  phratry  names, 
do  not  know.  In  the  primitive  tribes,  with  no  churinga 
nanja^  th^  totems  became  hereditary.  Among  the  ad- 
vanced Arunta,  with  churinga  nanja^  the  totems  did  not 
(like  all  other  things,  including  the  right  to  work  the 

^  Fortnight^  Rtvuw^  p.  458. 


THE  TRIBES  OMITTED  197 

paternal  totemic  ritual),  become  hereditary,  though 
their  rites  did,  which  is  curious.  Consequently,  Mr. 
Frazer  suggests,  the  Arunta  did  not  redistribute  the 
totems  so  that  one  totem  never  occurs  in  both 
exogamous  phratries;  and  totems  in  the  region  of 
churinga  nanja  alone  are  not  exogamous. 

Finally  the  tribes  of  Central  Australia,  which  we  prove 
to  have  the  more  advanced  ceremonial,  system  of  in- 
heritance, local  magistracies  hereditary  in  the  male  line, 
and  the  matrimonial  classes  which  Mr.  Frazer  proclaims 
to  be  later  than  the  mere  phratries  of  many  south-eastern 
tribes — "are  the  more  backward,  and  the  coastal  tribes 
the  more  progressive."  * 

This  is  a  very  hard  saying  1 

It  seems  to  rest  either  on  Mr.  Frazer's  opinion  that 
the  south  tribes  of  Queensland,  and  many  on  the 
Upper  Murray,  Paroo,  and  Barwan  rivers  are  "  coastal " 
("which  is  absurd"),  or  on  a  failure  to  take  them  into 
account.  For  these  tribes,  the  Barkinji,  Ta-Ta-Thi, 
Barinji,  and  the  rest,  are  the  least  progressive,  and 
"coastal,"  of  course,  they  are  not. 

This  apparent  failure  to  take  into  account  the 
most  primitive  of  all  the  tribes,  those  on  the  Murray, 
Paroo,  Darling,  Barwan,  and  other  rivers,  and  to  over- 
look even  the  more  advanced  Kamilaroi,  is  exhibited  by 
Mr.  Howitt,  whose  example  Mr.  Frazer  copies,  in  the 
question  of  Australian  religious  beliefs. 

I  quote  a  passage  from  Mr.  Howitt,  which  Mr. 
Frazer  re-states  in  his  own  words.  He  defines  "the 
part  of  Australia  in  which  a  belief  exists  in  an  anthro- 
pomorphic supernatural  being,  who  lives  in  the  sky,  and 
who  is  supposed  to  have  some  kind  of  influence  on 

^  Fertnif^tly  HevUm,  p.  463. 


198         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

the  morals  of  the  natives  .  .  .  That  part  of  Australia 
which  I  have  indicated  as  the  habitat  of  tribes  having 
that  belief "  (namely, '  certainly  the  whole  of  Victoria  and 
of  New  South  Wales  up  to  the  eastern  boundaries  of  the 
tribes  of  the  Darling  River')  "is  also  the  area  where 
there  has  been  the  advance  from  group  marriage  to 
individual  marriage,  from  descent  in  the  female  line  to 
that  in  the  male  line;  where  the  primitive  organisation 
under  the  class  system  has  been  more  or  less  replaced 
by  an  organisation  based  on  locality — in  fact,  where 
those  advances  have  been  made  to  which  I  have  more 
than  once  drawn  attention  in  this  work."  ^ 

This  is  an  unexpected  remark  1 

Mn  Howitt,  in  fact,  has  produced  all  his  examples  of 
tribes  with  descent  in  the  female  line,  except  the  Dieri 
and  Urabunna  '^  nations,"  from  the  district  which  he  calls 
'^  the  habitat  of  tribes  in  which  there  has  been  advance 
.  .  .  from  descent  in  the  female  to  that  in  the  male 
line."  Apparently  all,  and  certainly  most  of  the  south- 
eastern tribes  described  by  him  who  have  not  made 
that  advance,  cherish  the  belief  in  the  sky-dwelling  All 
Father. 

I  give  examples  : — 

Narrinyeri  ....  Male  descent.  All  Father. 

Wiimbaio     ....  Female  descent.  „ 

Wotjobaluk  ....  „  „ 

Waewurung     •    .    .  Male  descent  „ 

A^K/m „  „ 

Kurmd „  „ 

Wiradjuri   ....  Fenutle  descent.  „ 

WathiWathi  ...  „  „ 

Ta-Ta-Thi  ....  „  „ 

Kaifiiiuttoi    ....  „  „ 

Yuin Male  descent.  „ 

Ngarigo Female  descent.  „ 

^  Howitt,  Native  Racis  ofSmth^East  Australia^  p.  50a 


THE  PRIMITIVE  TRIBES  199 

About  other  tribes  Mr.  Howitt's  information  is 
rather  vague,  but,  thanks  to  Mrs.  Langloh  Parker,  we 
can  add : — 

Euaklayi Female  descent        All  Father. 

Here,  then,  we  have  eight  tribes  with  female  descent 
and  the  All  Father,  against  five  tribes  with  male  descent 
and  the  All  Father,  in  the  area  to  which  Mr.  Howitt 
assigns  ''  the  advance  from  descent  in  the  female  line  to 
that  in  the  male  line."  The  tribes  with  female  descent 
occupy  much  the  greater  part  of  the  southern  interior, 
not  of  the  coastal  line,  of  South-East  Australia. 

Mr.  Frazer  puts  the  case  thus,  "it  can  hardly  be 
an  accidental  coincidence  that,  as  Dr.  Howitt  has  well 
pointed  out,  the  same  regions  in  which  the  germs  of 
religion  begin  to  appear  have  also  made  some  progress 
towards  a  higher  form  of  social  and  family  life."  ^ 

But  though  Dr.  Howitt  has  certainly  "pointed  it  out," 
his  statement  seems  in  collision  with  his  own  evidence 
as  to  the  facts.  The  tribes  with  female  descent  and  the 
"germs  of  religion  "  occupy  the  greater  part  of  the  area 
in  which  he  finds  "the  advance  from  descent  in  the 
female  line  to  that  in  the  male  line."  He  does  find  that 
advance,  with  belief  in  the  All  Father,  in  some  tribes, 
mainly  coastal,  of  his  area,  but  he  also  finds  the  belief 
in  the  AU  Father  among  "nations"  and  tribes  which 
have  not  made  the  "advance" — in  the  interior.  As  the 
northern  tribes  who  have  made  the  "advance"  are 
mainly  credited  with  no  All  Father,  it  is  clear  that  the 
"  advance "  in  social  and  family  life  has  no  connection 
with  the  All  Father  belief.  Mr.  Howitt,  in  saying  so, 
overlooks  his  own  collection  of  evidence.  Large  tribes 
and  nations,  in  the  region  described  by  him,  are  in  that 

^  Fortnightly  Reouw^  p.  452. 


20O         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

social  organisation  which  he  justly  regards  as  the  least 
advanced  of  all,  yet  they  have  the  "  germs  of  religion," 
which  he  explains  as  the  results  of  a  social  progress 
which  they  have  not  made. 

In  these  circumstances  Mr.  Howitt  might  perhaps 
adopt  a  large  theory  of  borrowing.  The  primitive 
south-east  tribes  have  not  borrowed  from  the  remote 
coastal  tribes  the  usage  of  male  descent;  they  have 
not  borrowed  matrimonial  classes  from  the  Kamilaroi. 
But|  nevertheless,  they  have  borrowed,  it  may  be  said, 
their  religion  from  remote  coastal  tribes.  Of  course,  it 
is  just  as  easy  to  guess  that  the  coastal  tribes  have 
borrowed  their  Bunjil  All  Father  from  the  Kamilaroi 
Baiame,  or  the  Mulkari  of  Queensland. 

I  have  not  commented  on  Mr.  Frazer's  suggestion 
as  to  the  origin  of  exogamy.  It  was  the  result,  he 
thinks,  of  a  deliberate  reformation,  and  its  earliest  form 
was  the  division  of  the  tribe  into  the  two  phratries. 
*'  Exogamy  was  introduced  ...  at  first  to  prevent  the 
marriage  of  brothers  with  sisters,  and  afterwards"  (in 
the  matrimonial  classes)  ''to  prevent  the  marriage  of 
parents  with  children."^  The  motive  was  probably  a 
superstitious  fear  that  such  close  unions  would  be 
harmful,  in  some  way,  ''to  the  persons  immediately 
concerned,"  according  to  "a  savage  superstition  to 
which  we  have  lost  the  clue."  I  made  the  same  sug- 
gestion in  Custom  and  Myth  (1884).  ^  added,  however, 
that  totemic  exogamy  might  be  only  one  aspect  of  the 
general  totem  tabu  on  eating,  killing,  or  touching, 
&c.,  an  object  of  the  totem  name.  We  seem  to  have 
found  the  clue  to  that  superstition,  including  the  blood 
tabu,  emphasised  by  Dr.  Durkheim.     But,  on  this  show- 

>  Fortnightly  RtvUw^  p.  6l. 


OBJECTIONS  201 

ing,  the  animal  patrons  of  phratries  and  totem  kins,  with 
their  "religion,"  are  among  the  causes  of  exogamy, 
while  some  unknown  superstition,  in  Mr.  Frazer's 
system,  may  have  been  the  cause.  As  we  have  a  known 
superstition,  of  origin  already  explained,  it  seems  un- 
necessary to  suppose  an  unknown  superstition. 

Again,  if  the  reformers  knew  who  were  brothers 
and  sisters,  how  can  they  have  been  promiscuous  ? 
Further,  the  phratriac  prohibition  includes  vast  num- 
bers of  persons  who  are  not  brothers  and  sisters,  except 
in  the  phratry.  Sires  could  prohibit  unions  of  brothers 
and  sisters,  each  in  his  own  hearth  circle ;  the  phratriac 
prohibition  is  much  more  sweeping,  so  is  the  matri- 
monial class  prohibition.  Once  more,  parent  with  child 
unions  do  not  occur  among  primitive  tribes  which  have 
no  matrimonial  classes  at  all. 

For  these  reasons  Mr.  Frazer's  system  does  not 
recommend  itself  at  least  to  persons  who  cherish  a 
difiFerent  theory. 

He  may,  perhaps,  explain  the  Kaitish  usage,  in 
which  totems,  though  not  hereditary  but  acquired  in 
the  Arunta  manner,  remain  practically  exogamous,  by 
suggesting  that  the  Kaitish  are  imitating  the  totemic 
exogamy  of  the  rest  of  the  savage  world.  But  this 
hardly  accounts  for  the  fact  that,  among  the  Arunta, 
certain  totems  greatly  preponderate  in  one,  and  another 
set  of  totems  in  the  other  exogamous  moiety  of  the 
tribe.  These  facts  indicate  that  the  Arunta  system  is 
relatively  recent,  and  has  not  yet  overcome  among  the 
Kaitish  the  old  rule  of  totemic  exogamy.  Mr.  Frazer, 
too,  as  has  been  said,  does  not  touch  on  the  con- 
comitance of  stone  churinga  nanja  with  the  Arunta 
system  of  acquiring  totems. 


APPENDIX 


SOME  AMERICAN  THEORIES  OF  TOTEMISM 

With  tome  American  theories  of  the  origin  of  totemism,  I  find 
it  extremely  difficult  to  deal.  They  ought  not  to  be  n^lected, 
that  were  disrespectful  to  the  valued  labours  of  the  school  of 
the  American  "  Bureau  of  Ethnology."  But  the  expositions  are 
scattered  in  numerous  Reports,  and  are  scarcely  focussed  with 
distinctness.  Again,  the  terminology  of  American  inquirers,  the 
technical  words  whidi  they  use,  differ  from  those  which  we  em- 
ploy. That  fact  would  be  unimportant  if  they  employed  their 
technical  terms  consistently.  Unluckily  this  is  not  their  prac- 
tice. The  terms  "  clan,"  "  gens,"  and  "  phratry  "  are  by  them 
used  with  bewildering  inconsistency,  and  are  often  interchange- 
able. When  <<clan"  or  gms^  means,  now  (i)  a  collection  of 
gmUes^  or  (a)  of  families,  or  (3)  of  phratries,  and  again  (4) 
"  clan  "  means  a  totem  kin  with  female  descent ;  and  again  (5) 
a  village  community ;  while  a  phratry  may  be  (i)  an  exogamous 
moiety  of  a  tribe,  or  (2)  a  "  family,"  or  (3)  a  magical  society  ; 
and  a  gms  may  be  (i)  a  clan,  or  (3)  a  ''family,"  or  (3)  an 
aggregate  of  families,  or  (4)  a  totem  kin  with  male  descent,  or 
(S)  a  magical  society,  while  "  tribal "  and  "  sub-tribal  divisions  " 
are  vaguely  spoken  of — the  European  student  is  apt  to  be 
puzzled !  All  these  varieties  of  terminology  occur  too  frequently 
in  the  otherwise  most  praiseworthy  works  of  some  of  the  Ameri- 
can School  of  Anthropologists.  I  had  collected  the  examples, 
but  to  give  them  at  length  would  occupy  considerable  space, 
and  the  facts  are  only  too  apparent  to  every  reader.^ 

Once  more,  and  this  point  is  of  essential  importance,  the 
recent  writers  on  totemism  in  America  dwell  mainly  on  the 

^  Compare  Mr.  N.  W.  Thomas's  criticisms  of  Mr.  Hill-Tout,  in  Man^  May, 
June,  July  1904. 


APPENDIX  203 

institution  as  found  among  the  tribes  of  the  north-west  coast 
of  the  States  and  of  British  Columbia.  These  tribes  are  so  ad- 
vanced in  material  civilisation  that  they  dwell  in  village  settle- 
ments. They  have  a  system  of  credit  which  looks  like  a  satirical 
parody  of  the  credit  system  of  the  civilised  world.  In  some 
tribes  there  is  a  r^ular  organisation  by  ranks,  nobksst  depending 
on  ancestral  wealth. 

It  seems  sanguine  to  look  for  the  origins  of  totemism  among 
tribes  so  advanced  in  material  culture.  The  origin  of  totemism 
lies  far  behind  the  lowest  savagery  of  Australia.  It  is  found  in  a 
more  primitive  form  among  the  southern  and  eastern  than  in  most 
of  the  north-western  American  tribes,  but  the  north-western  are 
chiefly  studied,  for  example,  by  Mr.  Hill-Tout,  and  by  Dr.  Boas. 
A  new  difficulty  is  caused  by  the  alleged  intermixture  of  tribes 
in  very  different  states  of  sodal  organisation.  That  intermixture, 
if  I  understand  Mr.  Hill-Tout,  causes  some  borrowing  of  institu- 
tions among  tribes  of  different  languages,  and  different  degrees  of 
culture,  in  the  west  of  British  Columbia  and  the  adjacent  territories. 
We  find,  in  the  north,  the  primitive  Australian  type  of  organi- 
sation (Thlinket  tribe),  with  phratries,  totems,  and  descent  in  the 
female  line.  South  of  these  are  the  Rwaldutl,  with  descent 
wavering  in  a  curious  fashion  between  the  male  and  female 
systems.  Further  south  are  the  Salish  tribes,  who  have  evolved 
something  like  the  modern  family,  reckoning  on  both  sides  of 
the  house.  I,  with  Mr.  McGee  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of 
Ethnology,  suppose  the  Kwakiutl  to  be  moving  from  the  female 
to  the  male  line  of  descent.  In  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Hill-Tout 
and  Dr.  Boas,  they  are  moving  from  the  advanced  Salish  to  the 
primitive  Thlinket  system,  under  the  influence  of  their  primitive 
neighbours.  It  is  not  for  me  to  decide  this  question.  But  it 
is  unprecedented  to  find  tribes  with  male  reverting  to  female 
reckoning  of  descent 

Next,  Mr.  Hill-Tout  employs  <'  totem  "  in  various  senses. 
As  totems  he  reckons  (i)  the  sacred  animals  of  the  tribe;  (2)  of 
the  religious  or  magical  societies  (containing  persons  of  many 
totems  of  descent) ;  (3)  of  the  individual  and  (4)  the  hereditary 
totems  of  the  kin.  Ail  these,  our  author  says,  are,  by  their 
original  concept.  Guardian  Spirits.  All  such  protective  animab, 
plants,  or  other  objects,  which  patronise  and  give  names  to  indi- 
viduals, or  kins,  or  tribes,  or  societies,  are  "totems,"  in  the  opinion 
of  the  late  Major  Powell,  and  the  "  American  School,"  and  are 
essentially  <'  guardian  spirits."     All  are  derived  by  the  American 


204         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

theory^  from  the  numitu^  or  guardian,  of  some  indiTidual  to 
whom  the  animal  or  other  object  has  been  revealed  in  an  in* 
spired  dream  or  otherwise.  The  object  became  hereditary  in 
the  fiunily  of  that  man,  descended  to  his  offspring,  or,  in  early 
societies  with  reckoning  in  the  female  line,  to  the  offspring  of 
his  sisters  (this  is  Mr.  Hill-Tout's  theory),  and  so  became  the 
hereditary  totem  of  a  kin,  while  men  of  various  totem  kins  unite 
in  religious  societies  with  society  "  totems  "  suggested  by  dreams. 
These  communities  may  or  may  not  be  exogamous,  they  may 
even  be  endogamous.  By  the  friends  of  this  theory  the  associa- 
tion of  exogamy  with  hereditary  kin-totemism  is  r^arded  as 
'<  accidental,"  rather  than  essential. 

Using  the  word  *<  totem  "  in  this  wide  sense,  or  in  these 
many  senses,  which  are  not  ours,  it  is  plain  that  a  man  and 
woman  who  chance  to  have  the  same  <<  personal  totem,"  (<)  <>' 
belong  to  the  same  religious  society  with  its  "totem,"  (a)  or 
to  the  same  local  tribe  with  its  "  totem,"  (3)  may  marry,  and, 
by  this  way  of  looking  at  the  matter,  <*  totems  "  do  permit 
marriage  within  the  totem,  and  are  not  exogamous.  But  we,  for 
our  part  (like  Mr.  £.  B.  Tylor,  and  M.  Van  Gennep*),  call  none 
of  these  personal,  tribal,  or  society  sacred  animals  "  totems." 
That  term  we  reserve  for  the  hereditary  totem  of  the  exogamous 
kin.  Thus  it  is  not  easy,  it  is  almost  impossible,  for  us  to  argue 
with  Mr.  Hill-Tout,  as  we  and  he  use  the  term  << totem"  in 
utterly  different  senses. 

On  his  theory  there  are  all  sorts  of  <<  totems,"  belonging  to 
individuals  and  to  various  kinds  of  associations.  The  totems 
hereditary  in  the  kins  when  they  are  exogamous,  are  exogamous 
(on  Mr.  Hill-Tout's  theory)  because  the  kins,  in  certain  cases, 
made  a  treaty  of  alliance  and  intermarriage  with  other  kins  for 
purely  political  purposes.  They  might  have  made  such  treaties, 
and  become  exogamous,  though  they  had  no  totems,  no  name- 
giving  animals ;  and  they  might  have  had  name-giving  animals, 
and  yet  not  made  such  treaties  involving  exogamy.  Thus  totemic 
exogamy  is,  on  this  theory,  a  mere  accident:  the  totem  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  exogamous  rule. 

Mr.  Hill-Tout  writes  to  me,  "The  totem  groups  are  exogamous 
not  because  of  their  common  totem,  but  because  of  blood  re- 

^  We  most  not  suppose  that  all  American  scholars  af^ree  with  the  views  of 
the  **  American  School."  Major  Powell  used  "  totem  "  m  from  ten  to  fourteen 
different  meanings. 

'  Tothnismi  tt  TaUu  h  Madagascar.     1904. 


> 


1 


APPENDIX  205 

lationship.  It  is  the  blood-tie  ^  that  bans  marriage  within  the 
totem  group,  not  the  common  totem.  That  exogamy  and  the 
totem  group  with  female  descent  go  together  is  accidental,  and 
follows  from  the  fact  that  the  totem  group  is  always,  in  Indian 
theory  at  least,  blood  related.  Where  I  beheve  you  err  is  in 
regarding  exogamy  as  the  essential  feature  of  totemism.  I 
cannot  so  regard  it.  To  me  it  is  secondary,  and  becomes  the 
bar  to  marriage  only  because  it  marks  kinship  by  blood,  which 
is  the  real  bar,  however  it  may  have  arisen,  and  from  whatever 
causes." 

Here  I  am  obliged  to  differ  from  Mr.  Hill-Tout.  I  know 
no  instance  in  which  a  tribe  with  female  kin  (the  most  primitive 
confessedly),  and  with  hereditary  totems,  is  not  exogamous. 
Exogamy,  then,  if  an  accident,  must  be  called  an  inseparable 
accident  of  totemism,  with  female  descent,  till  cases  to  the  con- 
trary are  proved  to  exist.  Mr.  Hill-Tout  cites  the  Arunta  case : 
totems  among  the  Arunta  are  not  exogamous.  But  of  that 
argument  we  have  disposed  (see  Chapter  IV.),  and  it  need  no 
longer  trouble  us. 

Again,  it  is  not  possible  to  agree  with  Mr.  Hill-Tout  when 
he  writes,  <<It  is  the  blood-tie  that  bars  marriage  within  the 
totem  group,  not  the  common  totem."  The  totem  does  not  by 
its  law  prevent  marriages  of  blood  kin.  A  man,  as  far  as  totem 
law  goes,  may  marry  his  daughter  by  blood,  a  brother  may  marry 
his  sister  on  the  father's  side  (with  female  descent),  and  a  man 
may  not  marry  a  woman  from  a  thousand  miles  away  if  she  is  of 
his  totem,  though  she  is  not  of  his  blood.  It  is  not  the  real 
blood-tie  itself,  but  the  blood-tie  as  defined  and  sanctioned  by 
the  totem,  that  is  not  to  be  violated  by  marriage  within  it. 

To  return  to  the  theory  that  totems  are  tutelary  spirits  in 
animal  or  other  natural  forms.  A  man  may  have  a  spirit  guar- 
dian in  animal  form,  that  is  his  "  totem,"  on  the  theory.  He 
may  transmit  it  to  his  descendants,  and  then  it  is  their  <<  totem  " ; 
or  his  sisters  may  adopt  it,  and  hand  it  down  in  the  female  line, 
and  then  it  is  the  totem  of  his  nephews  and  nieces  for  ever ; 
or  the  man  may  not  transmit  it  at  all.  Usually,  it  is  mani- 
fest, he  did  not  transmit  it ;  for  there  must  have  been  countless 
species  of  anioud  protectors  of  individuals,  but  tribes  in  America 
have  very  few  totems.  If  a  man  does  transmit  his  animal 
protector,   his  descendants,  lineal   or  collateral,  may  become 

^  A  perfectly  fictitious  blood-tie,  when  a  man  Crow  is  bom  in  Victoria,  and 
a  woman  Crow  on  the  Gulf  of  Carpentaria. — ^A.  L. 


2o6         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

exogamoos,  on  the  theory,  by  making  with  other  kins  treaties 
of  intermarriage  to  secure  political  alliances ;  or  they  may  not, 
just  as  taste  or  chance  direct.  All  the  while,  every  "  totem  "  of 
every  sort,  hereditary  or  not,  is,  on  this  theory,  a  guardian  spirit 
That  spiritual  entity  is  the  essence  of  totemism,  exogamy  is  an 
accident — according  to  Mr.  Hill-Tout. 

Such  is  his  theory.  It  is,  perhaps,  the  result  of  studying 
the  North- West  American  Sm&i,  or  *<  personal  totem  "  (answer- 
ing to  the  nyaroMgs  of  Borneo,  the  nagttals  of  the  Southern 
American  tribes,  the  ytmhioi  of  the  Euahlayi  of  New  South 
Wales,  and  the  "  Bush  Souls "  of  West  Africa).  All  of  these 
are,  as  the  Ibans  of  Borneo  imply  in  the  term  nyanmg^  "  spirit 
helpers,"  in  animal  or  other  material  form.  Some  tribes  call 
genuine  totems  by  one  name,  but  call  animal  familiars  of  an 
individual  by  another  name.  Budjan^  among  the  Wiradjuri, 
stands  both  for  a  man's  totem,  and  for  the  animal  ^miliar  which, 
'<  during  apparently  hypnotic  suggestion,"  he  receives  on  being 
initiated.^  Among  the  Ibans  (but  not  among  the  few  Australian 
tribes  which  have  yunbetn)^  the  spirit  helper  may  befriend  the 
great-grandchildren  of  its  original  proUgi?^ 

But  in  no  case  recorded  does  this  nyarw^  become  the 
hereditary  totem  of  an  exogamous  kin. 

The  ^  spirit  helper  "  does  not  do  that,  nor  am  I  avrare,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  the  hereditary  totem  of  an  exogamous  kin 
is  ever,  or  anywhere,  regarded  as  a  "  tutelary  spirit."  No  such 
idea  has  ever  been  found  in  Australia.  Again,  if  I  understand 
Dr.  Boas,  among  his  north-western  tribes,  such  as  the  Thlinket, 
who  have  female  descent  and  hereditary  exogamous  totems,  the 
totem  is  no  more  regarded  as  a  tutelary  spirit  than  it  is  among 
the  Australians.  Of  the  Kwakiutl  he  says,  «  The  manitu  "  (that 
is,  the  individual's  tutelary  spirit)  <'  was  acquired  by  a  mythical 
ancestor,  and  the  connection  has  become  so  slight,  in  many 
cases,  that  the  tutelary  genius  of  the  clan  has  degenerated  into  a 
crest." 

That  the  « crest"  or  totem  mark  was  originally  a  "tutelary 
genius  "  among  the  Thlinket,  seems  to  be  merely  the  hypothesis 
of  Dr.  Boas.  Even  among  the  Kwakiutl,  in  their  transitional 
state,  the  totem  mark  now  is  "  in  many  cases  a  crest."  "  Thb 
degeneration  "  (from  spirit  to  crest),  our  author  writes,  "  I  take 

^  Howitt,  Nativs  Tribes  vf  South-Eoit  Australia^  p.  144. 
*  For  full  details  see  Messrs.  McDougall  and  Hose,/.  A,  L,  N.S.,  xzzi. 
pp.  199-201. 


APPENDIX  207 

to  be  due  to  the  influence  of  the  northern  totemism/'  such  as 
that  of  the  Thlinket.^  Thus  the  Thlinket,  totemic  on  Austialian 
primitive  lines,  do  not  regard  their  hereditary  exogamous  totems 
as  *< tutelary  spirits."'  No  more  do  the  Australians,  nor  the 
many  American  totemists  who  claim  descent  from  the  animal 
which  is  their  totem.^ 

The  tutelary  spirit  and  the  true  totem,  in  my  opinion,  are 
utterly  different  things.  The  American  theory  that  all  things 
(their  name  is  legion)  called  "  totems  "  by  the  American  School 
are,  in  origin  and  essence,  tutelary  spirits,  is  thus  countered  by 
the  fact  that  the  Australian  tribes  do  not  r^ard  their  hereditary 
totems  as  such ;  nor  do  many  American  tribes,  even  when  they 
are  familiar  with  the  idea  of  the  tutelary  spirits  of  individuals. 
The  Euahlayi,  in  Australia  for  instance,  call  tutelary  spirits 
ytmbeai;    hereditary   totems   they  call    by  a    separate  name, 

The  theory  that  the  hereditary  totem  of  the  exogamous  kin 
is  the  "spirit  helper"  or  "tutelary  genius/'  acquired  by  and 
transmitted  by  an  actual  ancestor,  cannot  be  proved,  for  many 
reasons.  We  know  plenty  of  tribes  in  which  the  individual  has 
a  "  spirit  helper,"  we  know  none  in  which  he  bequeaths  it  as  the 
totem  of  an  exogamous  kin. 

Again  we  find,  (i)  in  Australia,  tribes  with  hereditary  totems, 
but  with  no  "  personal  totems,"  as  far  as  our  knowledge  goes. 
Whence,  then,  came  Australian  hereditary  totems  ?  Next,  (2)  we 
find  tribes  with  both  hereditary  and  "  personal  totems,"  but  the 
"  personal  totems  "  are  never  hereditable.  The  «*  spirit  helpers," 
where  they  do  occur  in  Australia,  are  either  the  familiars  of 
wizards  (lUce  the  witch's  cat  or  hare),  or  are  given  by  wizards  to 
others.^  Next,  (3)  we  find,  in  Africa  and  elsewhere,  tribes  with 
"  personal  totems,"  but  with  no  hereditary  totems.  Why  not  ? 
For  these  reasons,  the  theory  that  hereditary  kin-totems  are  per- 
sonal tutelary  spirits  become  hereditary,  seems  a  highly  im- 
probable conjecture.  If  it  were  right,  genuine  totemism,  with 
exogamy,  might  arise  in  any  savage  society  where  "personal 
totems  "  flourish.  But  we  never  find  totemism,  with  exogamy, 
just  coming  into  existence. 

i  Report  of  Nat.  Mus.^  U.S.,  1895,  p.  33^ 

*  Mr.  Hill-Tont  differs  from  my  undentanding  of  Dr.  Boas's  remarics. 
»  Frmzer,  Totemism^  pp.  3-5.    Dorman,  pp.  231-334. 
«  MS.  of  Mrs.  Langloh  Parker. 

'  /.  A.  /.,  ToL  itL  pp.  44, 50,  350.     Howitt,  Native  Tribes  ^South-East 
Austraiia^  ppy  144,  387,  388.    MS.  of  Mrs.  LaDgloh  Parker. 


2o8  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

To  sum  up  the  discussion  as  Dsur  ms  it  has  gone,  Mr.  Hill- 
Tout  had  maintained  (i)  that  the  concept  of  a  ghostly  helper  is 
the  basis  of  all  his  varieties  of  so-called  "totems."  I  have 
replied  that  the  idea  of  a  tutelary  spirit  makes  no  part  of  the 
Australian,  or  usually  of  the  American  ''  concepts "  about  the 
hereditary  totems.     This  is  matter  of  certainty. 

Mr.  Hill-Tout  next  argues  that  hereditary  totems  are  only 
*'  personal  totems  "  become  hereditary,  which  may  happen,  he 
says,  in  almost  any  stage  of  savage  society.  I  have  replied, 
''  not  plus  the  totemic  law  of  exogamy,"  and  he  has  answered  (3) 
that  the  law  is  casual,  and  may  or  may  not  accompany  a  system 
of  totemic  kindred,  instancing  the  Arunta,  as  a  negative  example. 
In  answer,  I  have  shown  that  the  Arunta  case  is  not  to  the 
point,  that  it  is  an  isolated  "  sport." 

I  have  also  remarked  frequently,  in  previous  works,  that 
under  the  primitive  method  of  reckoning  descent  in  the  female 
line,  an  individual  male  cannot  bequeath  his  personal  protective 
animal  as  a  kin-name  to  his  descendants,  so  that  the  hereditary 
totem  of  the  kin  cannot  have  originated  in  that  way.  Mr.  Hill- 
Tout  answers  that  it  can,  and  does,  originate  in  that  way — a 
male  founder  of  a  family  can,  and  does,  found  it  by  bequeathing 
his  personal  protective  animal  to  the  descendants  of  hiis  sisters, 
so  that  it  henceforth  passes  in  the  female  line.  I  quote  his  reply 
to  my  contention  that  this  is  not  found  to  occur.^ 

"  The  main  objection  brought  against  this  view  of  the  matter 
by  Mr.  Andrew  Lang  and  others  is  that  the  personal  totem  is 
not  transmissible  or  hereditable.  But  is  not  this  objection  con- 
trary to  the  facts  of  the  case  ?  We  have  abundant  evidence  to 
show  that  the  personal  totem  is  transmissible  and  hereditable. 
Even  among  tribes  like  the  Thompson,  where  it  was  the  custom 
for  every  one  of  both  sexes  to  acquire  a  guardian  spirit  at  the 
period  of  puberty,  we  find  the  totem  is  in  some  instances  here- 
ditable. Teit  says,  in  his  detailed  account  of  the  guardian  spirits 
of  the  Thompson  Indians,  that  <  the  totems  of  the  shamans  * 
are  sometimes  inherited  directly  from  the  parents ' ;  and  among 
those  tribes  where  individual  totemism  is  not  so  prevalent,  as,  for 
instance,  among  the  coast  tribes  of  British  Columbia,  the  personal 
totem  of  a  chief  or  other  prominent  individual,  more  particularly 
if  that  totem  has  been  acquired  by  means  other  than  the  usual 
dream  or  vision,  such  as  a  personal  encounter  with  the  object  in 

^  Tram.  Roy,  Soc,  Canada,  ix.,  xi.  p.  72. 

'  These  are  not  totems,  but  '*  familiars,"  like  the  witch's  cat  or  hare.— A.  L. 


APPENDIX  209 

the  forest  or  in  the  mountains,  is  commonly  inherited  and  owned 
t^  his  or  her  posterity.  It  is  but  a  few  weeks  ago  that  I  made 
a  special  inquiry  into  this  subject  among  some  of  the  Halkomelem 
tribes  of  the  Lower  Fraser.  <Dr.  George,'  a  noted  shaman^ 
of  the  TcirQe'Ek,  related  to  me  the  manner  in  which  his 
grandfather  had  acquired  their  &mily  totem^^  the  Bear;  and 
made  it  perfectly  clear  that  the  Bear  had  been  ever  since  the 
totem  of  all  his  grandfather's  descendants.  The  important 
totem  of  the  Sqciju^t  ^  which  has  members  in  a  dozen  different 
tribes  of  the  coast  and  Lower  Fraser  Salish,  is  another  case  in 
point.  It  matters  little  to  us  how  the  first  possessor  of  the  totem 
acquired  it.  We  may  utterly  disregard  the  account  of  its  origin 
as  given  by  the  Indians  themselves,  the  main  fact  for  us  is,  that 
between  a  certain  object  or  being  and  a  body  of  people,  certain 
mysterious  relations  have  been  established,  identical  with  those 
existing  between  the  individual  and  his  personal  totem;  and 
thai  ihesi  ptople  traci  their  descmt  from  and  art  the  limal  dtscen- 
dants  of  the  man  or  woman  who  first  acquired  the  totem.  Here  is 
evidence  direct  and  ample  of  the  hereditability  of  the  individual 
totem,  and  American  data  abound  in  it." 

All  these  things  occur  under  the  system  of  male  kinship. 
Even  if  the  *'  personal  totem  "  of  a  chief  or  shaman  is  adopted 
by  his  offspring,  it  does  not  affect  my  argument,  nor  are  the 
bearers  of  the  badge  thus  inherited  said  to  constitute  an  exo- 
gamous  kin.*  If  they  do  not,  the  afiair  is  not,  in  my  sense, 
'<totemic"  at  all.  We  should  be  dealing  not  with  totemism 
but  with  heraldry,  as  when  a  man  of  the  name  of  lion  obtains 
a  lion  as  his  crest,  and  transmits  it  to  his  family.  Meanwhile  I 
do  not  see  "  evidence  direct  and  ample,"  or  a  shred  of  evidence, 

^  The  shaman's  sons  keep  on  the  shaman  business,  with  the  paternal 
fiuniliar.    It  is  not,  in  my  sense,  a  totem. — ^A.  L. 

*  My  italics. 

>  Brit,  Ass,,  190a.  Jlepffrt  of  Ethnol  Survey  of  Cimada,  pp.  51-52,  57. 
A  fairy  tale  about  the  origin  of  a  society  of  healing  and  magiou  influence. — 
A.  L. 

^  Mr.  Hill-Tout  says  elsewhere:  '* Shamans  only  inherited  their  m/m" 
(he  speaks  of  these  personal  totems  or  suiia)  "  from  their  finlhers ;  other  men 
had  to  acc|uire  their  own.  But  this  applied  only  to  the  dream  or  Tision  totem 
or  protective  spirit "  If  a  man  '  *  met  his  ghostly  guardian  in  form  of  a  bear," 
when  hunting,  he  would  take  it  as  his  "crest"  and  transmit  it.  This  hap- 
pened in  the  case  of  **Dr.  George^"  who  inherited  his  crest  and  guardian, 
the  Bear,  from  his  great*grand£stber,  who  met  a  bear  not  in  a  dream  but 
when  hunting.  (/.  A.  /.,  vol.  zxxiv.  pp.  326,  327.)  Such  inheritance,  in  an 
advanced  American  tribe  of  to-day,  does  not  seem  to  me  to  oonoborate  the 
belief  that  totems  among  the  many  primitive  tribes  of  Australia  are  the  result 
of  inheriting  a  personal  crest  or  guardian  spirit  of  a  male  ancestor. 

O 


210  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

thai  a  man^s  famiUar  animal  is  borrow$d  by  his  sisUrs,  and  handtd 
on  to  th€ir  children. 

Next,  as  to  that  point,  Mr.  Hill-Tout  writes :  i — 
**  To  return  to  Mr.  Lang's  primary  objection,  that  the  evic^u- 
tion  of  the  group  totem  cannot  proceed  from  the  personal, 
individual  totem  because  in  the  more  primitive  forms  of  society 
where  totemism  originated  "  male  ancestors  do  not  found  houses 
or  clan  names/'  descent  being  on  the  female  side.  As  Mr.  Lang 
has  laid  so  much  stress  upon  this  axgument,  and  is  able  apart 
from  it  to  appreciate  the  force  of  the  evidence  for  the  American 
point  of  view,  if  it  can  be  clearly  shown  that  his  objection  has 
no  basis  in  fiEict,  that  his  conception  of  the  laws  of  inheritance 
under  matriarchy  is  &ulty,  consistency  must  needs  make  him  a 
convert  to  the  American  view.  The  singular  error  into  which 
Mr.  Lang  has  fallen  is  in  overlooking  the  &ct  that  mak  property 
and  rights  are  as  hereditable  under  mother-right  as  under  fiaither- 
right,  the  only  difference  being  that  in  the  latter  case  the  trans- 
mission is  dirictfy  from  the  father  to  his  offspring,  and  in  the 
former  indirectly  from  the  maternal  uncle  to  his  sister's  chfldxen. 
What  is  there  to  prevent  a  man  of  alnlity  under  matriarchy  from 
'  founding  a  family,'  that  is,  acquiring  an  individual  totem  which 
by  his  personal  success  and  prosperity  is  looked  upon  as  a 
powerful  helper^  and  therefore  worthy  of  r^;ard  and  reverence  ? 
Under  mother-right  the  head  of  the  dan  is  invariably  a  man,  the 
elder  male  relative  on  the  maternal  side ;  and  the  dan  name  is 
not  so  much  the  property  of  the  woman  as  of  her  elder  brother 
or  her  conventional  *  father,'  that  is,  her  maternal  uncle.  The 
<  fathers '  of  the  group,  that  is,  the  maternal  undes,  are  just 
as  much  the  heads  and  *  founders  of  houses '  and  dams  in  the 
matriarchal  state  as  under  the  more  advanced  state  of  patriarchal 
rule.  And  that  they  do  found  family  and  group  totems  the 
evidence  from  our  northern  coast  tribes  makes  dear  beyond  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt 

"  The  oft-quoted  case  of  the  Bear  totem  among  the  Tsimshians 
is  a  case  in  point,  and  this  is  but  one  of  scores  that  could  be 
dted.  The  origin  of  this  totem  came  about  in  the  following 
manner :  *  A  man  was  out  hunting  and  met  a  black  bear  who 
took  him  to  his  home  and  taught  him  many  useful  things.  After 
a  lengthy  stay  with  the  bear  the  man  returned  home.  All  the 
people  became  afraid  of  him,  he  looked  and  acted  so  like  a  bear. 
Some  one  took  him  in  hand  and  rubbed  him  with  magic  herbs 
*  TramaOiam^  iz.  p.  76. 


APPENDIX  211 

and  he  became  a  man  again.  Thereafter  wheneyer  he  went 
hunting  his  friend  the  bear  helped  him.  He  bmit  a  house  and 
painUd  the  bear  on  the  front  of  it,  and  his  sister  made  a  dancing 
btanhet,  the  design  of  which  represented  a  bear.  Thereafter  the 
descendants  of  his  sister  used  the  bear  for  their  crest,  and  were 
known  as  the  Bear  ctan.*^ 

**  Who  was  the  *  founder  of  the  &mily '  here,  and  the  source 
of  the  dan  totem  ?  Clearly  and  indubitably  the  man;  and  so 
it  invariably  was,  as  the  study  of  the  myths  accounting  for  the  clan 
totems  plainly  shows.^  It  matters  not,  I  may  point  out,  that 
these  myths  may  have  been  created  since  the  formation  of  the 
clans  to  account  for  their  origin,  the  point  for  us  is  that  the  mtm 
was  regarded  by  the  natives  as  the  *  founder'  of  the  family  and 
clan.  The  founders  of  families  and  totem-crests  are  as  invariably 
men  under  matriarchy  as  under  patriarchy,  the  essential  difference 
only  between  the  two  states  in  this  regard  being  that  under  one 
the  descent  is  through  the  <  conventional  father,'  under  the  other 
through  the  'real  or  ostensible  father.'  Such  being  the  case, 
Mr.  Lang's  chief  argument  falls  to  the  ground,  and  the  position 
taken  by  American  students  as  to  the  origin  of  group-totems  is 
as  sound  as  before." 

Now  where,  outside  the  region  of  myth,  is  there  proof  that 
Mr.  Hill-Tout's  processes  ever  do  occur  ? 

Mr.  Hill-Tout  argues  that  the  founder  of  the  totem  kin  is 
"  invariably  the  man,  as  the  study  of  the  myths  accounting  for 
the  clan  totems  plainly  shows."  But  myths  have  no  his- 
torical authority,  and  many  of  these  myths  show  the  very 
opposite :  in  them  a  beast  or  other  creature  b^ets  the  <*  clan."  * 
To  be  sure,  Mr.  HiU-Tout  says  nothing  about  these  myths, 
or  about  scores  of  familiar  American  myths  *  to  the  very  same 
effect. 

Again,  as  mythical  evidence  is  worthless,  Mr.  Hill-Tout 
argues  that  "  the  man  was  regarded  by  the  natives  themselves 
as  the  *  founder '  of  the  family  or  clan."  Yes,  in  some  myths, 
but  not  in  those  which  Mr.  Hill-Tout  overlooks. 

That  the  natives  in  some  myths  regard  the  man  as  founder 

1  Fifth  Report  am  the  Physical  Ckaracttristics^  6^.,  tf  the  N.  W.  Tribes 
ef  Canada^  B.A.A.SmP.  24.    London,  18S9. 

*  The  myths,  in  fact,  vary ;  the  myth  of  descent  from  the  totem  also  occnrs 
eren  in  these  tribes.  (Hartland,  Folk  Lore,  zL  i,  pp.  60-61.  Boai,  Nai.. 
Mus.  Feport,  1895,  pp.  331,  336,  375-)— A.  L 

'  C£  Mr.  Hartland  in  Folk  Lore^  at  supra. 

^  Fraser,  Toiemism,  pp.  3-5. 


212  THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

of  a  totem  kin  under  female  descent  proves  nothing  at  alL  Does 
the  Tsimsbian  Bear  myth  prove  that  the  natives  themselves  turn 
into  Bears,  and  become  men  again?  Does  it  even  prove  that 
such  an  occurrence,  to-day,  would  now  seem  normal  to  them  ? 
Nothing  is  proved,  except  tiuit  in  myth-making  the  natives  think 
that  this  metamorphosis  may  have  occurred  in  the  past  In  the 
same  way — ^when  myth-making — they  think  that  a  man  might 
convey  his  badge  to  his  sisters,  to  be  hereditary  in  the  female  line. 
To  prove  his  case,  Mr.  Hill-Tout  must  show  that  men  actually 
do  thus  convey  their  personal  protective  animals  and  badges 
into  the  female  line.    To  that  evidence  I  shall  bow. 

If  I  reasoned  like  our  author,  I  might  argue,  *'  The  South 
African  tribes  say  that  their  totems  (siboko)  arose  in  nicknames 
given  to  them  on  account  of  known  historical  incidents,  there- 
fore my  conjecture  that  totems  thus  arose,  in  group  names  given 
from  without,  is  corroborated  by  the  natives  themselves,  who 
testify  thus  to  the  actuality  of  that  mode  of  getting  tribal  names 
9,nd  siboAo."^ 

But  I,  at  least,  cannot  argue  thus  I  The  process  {my  process) 
does  not  and  cannot  occur  in  South  African  conditions,  where 
tribes  of  an  advanced  culture  have  sacred  protective  animals. 
The  natives  have  merely  hit  on  my  own  conjecture,  as  to  the 
remote  germ  of  totemic  names,  and  applied  it  where  the  process 
never  occurs.  The  Tsimshians,  in  the  same  way,  are  £uniliar 
with  the  adoption  of  protective  animals  by  male  individuals. 
They  are  also  familiar  with  the  descent  of  the  kin-totem  through 
females.  like  the  &mous  writer  on  Chinese  Metaphysics,  the 
Tsimshians  <<  combine  thdr  information."  A  man,  they  say, 
became  a  bear,  and  became  a  man  again.  He  took  the  Bear  for 
his  badge;  and  to  account  for  the  transmission  of  the  badge 
through  women,  the  Tsimshians  add  that  his  sister  also  took  and 
transmitted  the  Bear  cognisance,  as  a  hereditary  totem.  They 
think  this  could  be  done,  exactly  as  the  Bakwena  think  that 
their  tribal  protective  animal,  the  Crocodile,  the  Baboon,  or  an- 
other, could  arise  in  a  nickname,  given  nemtiy.  It  could  not  do 
so,  the  process  is  no  longer  possible,  the  explanation  in  this  case 
is  false,  and  does  not  help  my  theory  of  the  origin  of  totemism. 
In  the  same  way  the  Bear  myth  does  not  help  Mr.  Hill-Tout*s 
theory,  unless  he  can  prove  that  sisters  do  actually  take  and 
transmit  to  their  descendants,  as  exogamous  totems,  the  suUa  at 
individual  protective  animal  of  their  brothers.     Of  this  process 

*  For  the  full  account  of  SiMko  see  Chapter  II.,  iu^ra. 


APPENDIX  213 

I  do  not  observe  that  Mr.  Hill-Tout  gives  a  single  verifiable 
example. 

As  to  this  argument,  Mr.  Hill-Tout  writes  to  me,  <<  I  cannot 
accept  your  criticism  on  the  poor  evidence  of  the  Tsimshian 
accounts  of  the  origin  of  their  totem  kins.  You  could  not  take 
such  a  view,  I  think,  if  you  had  personal,  first-hand  knowledge 
of  the  Indian  mind.  Your  objections  apply  to  <  classic  myths,' 
but  not  to  the  accounts  of  tribes  who  are  still  in  the  totemic 
stage." 

I  fail  to  understand  the  distinction.  It  is  now  universally 
recognised  that  most  myths,  <* classic"  or  savage  (the  classic 
being  survivals  of  savage  myths),  are  mere  fanciful  hypotheses 
framed  to  account  for  unexplained  facts.  Moreover,  I  am  dis- 
cussing and  comparing  the  myths  of  various  savage  races,  I  am 
not  speaking  of  "  classic  myths."  Savages  have  anticipated  us 
in  every  one  of  our  hypotheses  as  to  the  origin  of  totemism,  but, 
of  course,  they  state  their  hypotheses  in  the  shape  of  myths,  of 
stories  told  to  account  for  the  facts.  Some  Australian  myths 
(avour  Mr.  Howitt's  hypothesis,  others  favour  that  of  Mr.  Spencer, 
one  flatters  that  of  Dr.  Haddon,  one  African  myth  is  the  fore- 
runner of  my  theory,  and  a  myth  of  the  Tsimshians  anticipates 
the  idea  of  Mr.  Hill-Tout.  But  all  these  myths  are  equally 
valueless  as  historical  evidence. 

As  to  heritage  under  female  kin,  which  I  am  said  not  to 
understand,  no  man  reckoning  by  female  kin  has  hitherto  been 
said  to  inherit  his  totem  from  his  maternal  uncle  !  A  man  in- 
herits his  totem  from  his  mother  only,  and  inherits  it  if  he  has 
no  maternal  uncles,  and  never  had.  If  a  man  has  a  maniiUy  a 
nagual^  a  yunbeai^  a  nyarong,  or  "  personal  totem,"  his  sister 
does  not  take  it  from  him  and  hand  it  to  her  children,  or,  if  this 
ever  occurs,  I  say  once  more,  we  need  proof  of  it.  A  man  may 
inherit  <*  property  and  rights "  from  his  maternal  uncles  under 
female  kin.  But  I  speak  of  the  totem  name,  which  a  man  un- 
deniably does  not  inherit  from  his  maternal  uncle,  while  there  is 
no  proof  offered  that  a  woman  ever  takes  such  a  name  from  her 
brother,  and  hands  it  on  to  her  children.  So  I  repeat  that, 
under  the  system  of  reckoning  in  the  female  line,  "  male  ances- 
tors do  not  found  houses  or  clan  names,"  or  are  not  proved  to 
do  so. 

It  is  apparent,  probably,  that  a  theory  of  totemism  derived  in 
great  part  from  the  myths  and  customs  of  a  few  advanced  tribes, 


214         THE  SECRET  OF  THE  TOTEM 

dwelling  in  village  communities,  and  sometimes  in  possession  of 
the  modern  family,  with  male  kin,  is  based  on  focts  which  are 
not  germane  to  the  matter.  The  origin  of  totemism  must  be 
sought  in  tribes  of  much  more  backward  culture,  and  of  the 
confessedly  <<  more  primitive "  type  of  organisation  with  female 
descent  To  disprove  Mr.  Hill-Tout's  theory  is  of  course  im- 
possible. There  may  have  been  a  time  when  "  personal  totems  " 
were  as  common  among  the  Australians  as  they  are  now  rare. 
There  may  have  been  a  time  when  an  Australian  man's  sisters 
adopted,  and  transmitted,  his  *'  personal  totem,"  though  that  is 
no  longer  done  to  our  knowledge.  It  may  have  chanced  that 
stocks,  being  provided,  on  Mr.  Hill-Tout's  plan,  with  tutelary 
spirits  of  animal  names  descending  in  the  female  line,  made 
marriage  treaties,  and  so  became  exogamous.  Then  we  should 
have  explained  totemism,  perhaps,  but  a  considerable  number 
of  missing  facts  must  be  discovered  and  reported  before  this 
explanation  can  be  accepted. 

Mr.  Hill-Tout's  scheme,  I  presume,  would  work  out  thus : 
there  are  sets  of  human  beings,  A,  B,  C,  D,  £,  F.  In  all  of  these 
every  man  acquires  an  animal,  plant,  or  other  friendly  object 
Their  sisters  adopt  it  as  a  name,  and  hand  it  on  to  their  children. 
The  stocks  are  now  named  after  the  fiimiliar  animals,  as  Grouse, 
Trout,  Deer,  Turtle,  Buffalo,  Salmon,  and  hundireds  more. 
They  have  hitherto,  I  presume,  married  as  they  please,  anyhow. 
But  stocks  Grouse  and  Deer  think,  "  We  shall  be  stronger  if  we 
give  our  women  to  each  other,  and  never  let  a  Grouse  marry  a 
Grouse,  or  a  Deer  a  Deer."  They  make  this  pact,  the  other 
stocks,  Salmon,  Turtle,  Buffalo,  &c,  come  into  it,  ranging 
themselves  under  Deer  or  Grouse,  and  now  Deer  and  Grouse 
are  phratries  in  a  tribe  with  the  other  animals  as  heads  of  totem 
kins  in  the  phratries.  The  animak  themselves  go  on  being 
tutelary  spirits,  and  are  highly  respected. 

This  scheme  (whether  Mr.  Hill-Tout  would  arrange  it  just 
thus  or  not)  works  perfectly  well.  It  explains  the  origin  of 
exogamy — not  by  an  inexplicable  moral  reform,  and  bisection  of 
the  horde,  but  as  the  result  of  a  political  alliance.  It  explains 
the  origin  of  totemism  by  a  theory  of  animal-shaped  tutelary 
spirits  taken  on  by  sisters  from  brothers,  and  bequeathed  by  the 
sisters  when  they  become  mothers  to  their  children.  It  exj^ains 
the  origin  of  phratries,  and  of  totem  kins  in  the  phratries.  It 
works  out  all  along  the  line — ^if  only  one  knew  that  very  low 
savages  deliberately  made  political  alliances ;  and  if  all  low  savages 


*\  ^^, 


APPENDIX  215 

had  animal-shaped  tutelary  spirits ;  and  if  these  were  known  to 
be  adopted  from  brothers  by  sisters,  and  by  sisters  bequeathed, 
for  an  eternal  possession,  to  their  children;  and  if  these  transac- 
tions, once  achieved,  were  never  repeated  in  each  line  of  female 
descent — no  sister  in  the  next  generation  taking  on  fwr  brother's 
personal  tutelary  animal,  and  bequeathing  it  to  her  children  for 
ever.  Finally,  if  savages  in  general  did  regard  their  hereditary 
totems  as  tutelary  spirits,  the  sketch  which  I  make  on  Mr.  HUl- 
Touf  s  lines  would  leave  nothing  to  be  desired.  But  we  do  not 
know  any  of  these  desirable  facts. 

If  I  have  stated  Mr.  Hill-Tout's  ideas  correctly,  he  agrees 
with  me  in  regarding  the  tribe  as  formed  by  aggr^tion  of  many 
more  primitive  groups.  He  does  not  regard  the  phratries  and 
totem  kins  as  the  result  of  the  segmentation  of  a  primordial 
indiscriminate  mass  or  horde,  split  up  at  the  injunction  of  an 
inspired  medicine  man,  or  by  a  tribal  decree.  Against  our 
opinion,  Mr.  Howitt  axgues  that  only  one  writer  who  "  has  or 
had  a  personal  acquaintance  with  the  Australian  blacks  "  accepts 
it,  the  Rev.  John  Matthew.  It  is  accepted,  however,  as  far  as 
<<  sub-phratries"  go  (as  an  alternative  hypothesis),  by  Mr.  Howitt's 
friend,  Dr.  Fison.^  But  I  have  given  my  reasons  for  not  accept- 
ing Mr.  Howitt's  doctrine,  and  I  await  some  reason  for  his  re- 
jection of  mine.  Even  authors  who  have  "  a  personal  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Australian  blacks "  should,  I  venture  to  think, 
give  their  reasons  for  rejecting  one  and  persisting  in  another 
theory  of  "  the  probabilities  of  the  case."  *  I  have  shown  why 
I  think  it  improbable  that  a  postulated  prehistoric  tribe  split 
itself  up,  for  no  alleged  reason,  at  the  suggestion  of  a  medicine 
man.  Now  I  am  anxious  to  know  why  my  postulated  groups 
should  not  make  marriage  alliance  for  the  reason  of  securing 
peace — a  very  sufficient  motive  for  betrothals. 

.  ^  Kamilaroi  ttnd  Kumai^  pp.  71,  73. 
*  NoHvt  Tribet  of  South- East  Amtraiia^  pp.  145,  144* 


Prinl«4  \if  BALLAimrwB,  Haiiiom  5*  Co 
BdiBbvfh  5*LoodM 


JUL  3  -  193: 


n 

3. 


I